vs.
"The GPL attempts to force people and businesses to release their source code. There is nothing wrong with that, except I don't think it qualifies as "free software". I want anybody to be able to do anything they want with my programs and/or its source code."[1]
And I agree pretty much with the latter.
With GPL, it works within the existing legal system to ensure that you have full freedom with GPL software as long as you continue to give such freedom to those who use your own versions of GPL.
It reminds me of the issue with a democracy. Does a true democracy allow the voters to replace the democracy with another form of government (say a theocracy) or does a true democracy uphold that the one choice they cannot make is to remove democracy (individually they can stop voting, but they cannot take the vote away from anyone else).
Or take the question of a free market. Given a free market, no man is bound as a slave by default. But does a fully free market allow for a man to sell himself into slavery (and to what degree, as taking on debt might be considered a really light form of indentured servitude, college debt which cannot be discharged could be considered a stronger form, and child support where one can be sentenced to jail could be considered full indentured servitude)?
All of these seem to share a core underlying question, perhaps even an underlying paradox. I'm still not sure what it is, though it does remind me a bit of Russel's paradox in an absolutely rigorless way.
LOL No. The cost of using GPL code is that you have to release your source code. Just like the cost of using some proprietary software is $X. If you don't want to pay that price, don't use the software.
"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Now you tell me which of these licenses are closer to the definition.
Here's a little haiku by RMS:
Using GPL
is encroaching on our rights
to encroach on yours
Thank you in advance.
Almost every license requires you to include the Copyright notice and copy of the license along with your code and usually in the running program as well.
Of course, that's a ton easier than being required to release your source code and not DRM the binaries.
I don't think that restraining what the users can do or have to do while using your "free" software can hold up against the definition of freedom.
I think what you are talking about is the moral superiority here, you are thinking that you are in a better position to define freedom for users that is different from the definition in the dictionary. This is pretty common patter in the society nowadays. Anyways, I am sticking to the original definition. :)
They just can't release binaries without the source, as they would be preventing other people from doing anything they want with it.
Arguing against that on the basis of freedom is hypocritical.