Comment Re:Apache? (Score 2, Insightful) 188
Since you got moderated to "insightful" and I don't have moderation points in this article, I'll have to take the bait:
the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL
They're both just as Free Software. Claiming one is "more free" than the other, is a proof that you're confusing issues and still have something to learn about Free Software licensing, because for instance...
in that you can do anything you want with it
No, you can't. You can't claim you're the author, for instance. Actually, it's very hard to find a popular license where you can do that. In some jurisdictions, it is even legally impossible to do so.
including closing it if you are so inclined.
That you can, and it is a crying shame.
Plus you don't have to buy into the feverish and rabid philosophy of the majority of GPL disciples.
Funny you should say that, since your comment is quite philosophically rabid, like the majority of the GPL haters club.
Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?
No Free Software license mandates publishing. The GNU GPL in particular only mandates that IF AND ONLY IF you publish, then you must provide the same rights and obligations (in a very broad overview, read the text for the gory details) you got when you got a copy of said software.
Besides, when you do publish in a license like Apache's, Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work and it is very likely to do so.
Indeed it has done so, albeit not Apache, but a somewhat similar but quite shorter license, previously.