It depends on what freedom. GPL isn't free; it's handcuffware. It's "freedom" on someone else's terms. BSD is a truly free license whereas GPL is an attempt at an anti-capitalist license model.
It's freedom on my terms too: GPL protects the developer and user community from malicious patents, hostile forks, lock-down attempts, bait-and-switch-to-closed.
Because there is a track record of this things happening and damaging the projects.
> Surely a free software license couldn't say "it's forbidden to run this program on iOS"
Restrictions like "don't be evil, don't use it inside NSA" can be either too vague to be applicable, easy to circumvent, legally inapplicable or nonsensical. E.g. in many countries some institutions including military are not restricted by copyright law.
On top of that, shipping a distribution with thousands of different licenses would be a nightmare.
Are you asking why did they choose this goal? There are many essays explaining why this goal mattered to both FSF- and OpenSource- advocates.
I'm sure the FSF sees this as a tradeoff that has to be made in order to keep free software viable. But that's a very different story than "user freedom is everything".
This is not inconsistent with "user freedom is everything".
That presumes that the FSF's tradeoff is getting things wrong. If this strategy is what results in maximum overall user freedom, then that is exactly the strategy you have to follow if "user freedom is everything".
It is meaningless to say that making slavery illegal is a tradeoff that has to be made in order to keep a free society viable, but that is a very different story than "human freedom is everything". Yes, human freedom is everything, and that is exactly why we restrict people from owning slaves, there is no contradiction there.
It is certainly fair in the sense that the Linux or BSD kernel people will never get to see, and benefit from the NT code, but microsoft and Apple can certainly use any BSD or MIT licensed code they want to.
But using Linux kernel code in the NT kernel is a special case of software sharing that can only be done at the source code level, by experienced programmers. And then it has to be released by the project maintainers, in this case the linux foundation, or microsoft.
But application code (e.g. an mp3 player), can be released for both windows and linux whether they are closed-source, or GPL.
The kernel might not be the best example to make your point.
Of course not, free software allows the user to use the software however they wish. Anything else would be unfree software.
However, if you receive software governed the GPL, it is NOT legal to publish that software via the iOS App Store, as that violates the users' GPL-given right to build and run modifications. (The original author can dual-license software they create, in both GPL and iOS-licensed versions)
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-ap...
Government backdoors are irrelevant to free software, since anyone can inspect software and remove backdoors.
(With a minor exception of one game console.)
That's pretty much the difference in practice. That's actually pretty similar to how our capitalist, democratic society works. (we do restrict people's freedoms where they would end up taking away freedom from someone else).
Sometimes the one approach is better, sometimes the other. Apply right tool to right job, as needed.
Note that it is entirely possible to earn money using free (as in speech) software, and many quite capitalist companies do so.
(ps; in my limited experience in hiring expensive lawyers to resolve legal conflicts while capitalisting: the GPL appears to deliver a lot more bang for buck than MIT or BSD. In that limited domain. MIT and BSD can be quite useful in other domains! )
I would, however, encourage you to continue to avoid software that does not meet your ethical standards. That is what I do, and why I refuse to use software from a number of sources myself.