[gigatree]

It does - he’s talking about the philosophical difference between free software and open source, and I’m criticizing the moral argument he makes with regard to free software. If somebody decides to use GPL because they want to prevent others from copying their work and competing against them (which actually seems less open/free? besides the point) then that’s a pragmatic/economic reason, not a moral/idealistic reason. They would still be in the “open source” camp even if their license was written by Stallman.

[franga2000]

> which actually seems less open/free? besides the point

You can't have freedom (or at least won't have it for long) if others have the freedom to take it away from you.

Copyleft gives you every possible freedom, except the freedom to withold those freedoms from the next person that comes along. It's not just a way to give freedom, it's a way to enforce it.

You could say that anarchy, where everyone is free to do everything, is the ultimate freedom. Then you step out of your bunker and get shot because someone wanted your shiny watch. So we trade a few freedoms in exchange for being able to enjoy the rest of them unimpeded.

[gigatree]

The problem is what happens after you’ve established that ideal of using force to only ensure everyone maintains their basic rights. Without a way to prevent it from being co-opted, it inevitably becomes an even bigger evil. Now I’ve traded stepping out of my bunker and getting shot for my watch with having my bunker ransacked because I didn’t keep up on my monthly dues. Clearest example is every country that’s ever adopted communism, but you can even look at what happened to the American colonies immediately after forming a central government - higher taxes and stolen land (and I’m not talking about the Indians), not to mention what’s it’s become today.