The BSD license forces me to reiterate that license text (AND copyright notices)! How dare they?

PD all the way.</sarcasm-attempt>

(By the way: The end user can use GPL code in proprietary projects - once end users redistribute it, they stop being end users by definition, and only then the GPL requirements kick in)

"The BSD license forces me to reiterate that license text (AND copyright notices)! How dare they?"

Compared to all of the requirements of the GNU, it's nothing. the GNU is like finding out you built your house with nuclear material.

"(By the way: The end user can use GPL code in proprietary projects - once end users redistribute it, they stop being end users by definition, and only then the GPL requirements kick in)"

If you include GNU software in your proprietary app, the second someone asks for your source code, you must give it to them. Once a user has the code, they can compile it and release it for free (The general view of the OSS community is that software should be free as in beer).

If your application is popular enough, this will happen and you will be forced to either go out of business, move onto another product, or charge for support.

It's okay though. It's just pushed app developers like me to only create web services. The result? the end user pays me a monthly fee and need internet access to use it. It actually makes it much easier for me to predict my future earnings.

There are multiple different definitions of the word "free". Deal with it. Pretending there's only one definition of the word "free" and that all other ones are wrong is just stupid flamebait.

"There are multiple different definitions of the word "free". Deal with it. Pretending there's only one definition of the word "free" and that all other ones are wrong is just stupid flamebait."

Okay. I believe DRM is free. If you don't like it you just don't understand the different definitions of "free" (and you might just be a troll).

By "definitions" I was referring to common definitions you can find in a dictionary, not definitions you just unilaterally invent.

Please, Hacker News is not the place for tired old flamewars. Go back to late 90s /. if you want to argue about whether GPL or BSD is more free.

"By "definitions" I was referring to common definitions you can find in a dictionary, not definitions you just unilaterally invent."

I'm not arguing the definition of "free". I'm arguing that GNU means that definition. It does not.

Since the 90s, the GNU has actually gotten more restrictive. The BSD license, on the other hand, has not.

Also, calling me a "troll" will not make me change my mind or silence me.

I never called you a troll. You, on the other hand, did call me a troll.

Calling my opinion "flamebait" implied it. We all know what that means.

Your response also has nothing really to do with our topic at-hand.

It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand because the topic at hand is decades-old flamebait that you've undoubtedly seen play out on mailing lists, Slashdot, etc. There's nothing to gain from talking about the GPL/BSD freedom debate that can't be had from a Google search. Literally the only reason I can imagine you bringing this up is to instigate a flamewar.

Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_Libre

I've known about the GNU since it's inception. Do you honestly think I don't know about this?

The GNU isn't "gratis" or "libre". This is my point.

How is GNU not libre? Because the end user cannot run GPL'd software for certain purposes with no strings attached?

I'm sure that the point you're raising has been discussed to death in a thousand flamewars, but I happen to be unfamiliar with them. Sorry about that.

Could somebody please sketch out how this argument goes? I will outline my understanding so far, and I will use some jargon and concepts from CS, AI, decision theory and economics, please tell me if that makes me harder to understand:

A1: Community effort is good when it makes people better off (as opposed to achieving some narrow goal).

A2: Most software is community effort, so good software is that which makes people better off. The way to ensure that is to make software free.

B2: Free? Then how would programmers gather resources necessary to support themselves why working in a capitalist economy?

A3: Free is a toxic word. Let's taboo it. Instead, let's talk about what matters to the user who has already acquired software somehow without hurting the programmer:

0. The user has acquired the software without hurting anybody, and it's nobody's business how the software is used, in which manner and to what ends.

1. The user has some software but it's not quite enough to accomplish his task, so he creates the solution using everything at his disposal — and that includes other software he has.

When software is distributed in a form that impedes understanding and editing it, this actively hurts user who is trying to reprogram or extend the software, which is a legitimate manner of use, because every manner of use is legitimate.

2. He wants to help other people (other economic agents), so he uses all the resources at his disposal, including software, to help them. This encompasses sharing software.

B3: But this is a very skewed and simplistic view of economy. Sometimes success depends on hindering your competition (cf. minimax). Sometimes you have to hurt other people to secure your freedoms. Sometimes you have to manipulate the market, withhold information, not do everything in your power to reach the declared goal, not take risks, or take unreasonably high risks.

A4: So what? There are some fundamental rights, and since they don't necessarily conflict, we should simply avoid situations where they do. When that's not possible, we should seek compromises. In the case of software, the right thing to do is to err on the side of more freedom, because otherwise the equilibrium will fall at the point where no further progress is possible, and we don't want that.

B5: Say what you want, but I have I paid job, and my job security depends on me hindering other people's ability to do the same. The best way to do this is not to share the source code I have written. Oh, and by the way, I have an emotional attachment to it, and I cringe to think of somebody messing with it. It is also badly written and I would be ashamed to have it published, but I have no time to clean it up.

A5: This is why we can't have nice things.

B6: Most of hardware is closed source. There is a lot of nice hardware. Some of the nicest hardware is made by some of the most secretive organizations. So you're obviously wrong in your conclusion, and you must have erred in one of the logical steps in your argument.