[kentrado]

I would argue that it is way easier to build a business around GPL licence than MIT.

I think the subject at hand is different from what you are writing.

What you are saying doesn't apply to the debate between permissive licenses and copy left licenses.

[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.