I didnt say the GPL limits freedom.
I implied the GPL makes it easier for corporations to limit peoples freedom.

Why do people care about software freedom and not care about freedom in real life.

What is the point in making software free if its going to be used to make society less free. Which is what has happened, corporations use software freedom to leaverage their non-software power over society.

I dont think everyone forsaw that.

And yes i agree people dont have to use the GPL, but as long as people believe in Freedom 0 there is no hope of people who more deeply care about freedom from COLLABORATING ON SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, which is what its uspposed to be all about.

I like the idea of snowdrift, which is what the story is about, but it still demands all software treat corporations as equals to people.

You can allow people to use it under certain conditions, its not unusual.

And you dont have to agree with me about such a licence, people code for different reasons. It doesnt harm you if people release software under licences you dont like. (assuming your not "forced" to use it)

Stake YOUR livelyhood on it and i would take you more seriously, i.e. you first.

There needs to be a licence that obligates those who profit from software to contribute whilst still allowing colaborative development and still free for personal use.

Corporate freeloaders sponging off the hard work of volunteers is just crazy,.

Freedom 0 (free to use for any purpose) is much to blame, it abandons any sense of ethics, and even demands the freedom to make society less free.

So the extra exclamation points didnt help to explain it then ?

And make sure its signed by a large well known company that works at the government level. Then you are really safe !!!

If you have nothing to fear you should try and avoid being searched, it just a waste of police resources.

Stolen is never the right term to use in conjuction with intellectual property, stolen implies the item in question is transitive.

Licence or contract violation are the words your probably looking for.

you first

At the NSA they KNOW a bigger haystack is a better haystack, so why not extend that idea to a programming language.

By understanding all the languages you get the strengths of all the languages and none of the weaknesses, programmers can just ignore the weaknesses then they arent there,

Why should programmers have to put up with those pesky syntax errors when you can just make the language accept any (stupid) command.

Forward to the future !

+1

The value of open source is that end users can choose to take repsonsibility of the software for themselves, or get someone else to do it for them.

A lot of moneypeople expected volunteers to do all the work and were not willing to accept any responsibility themselves. You would think they would learn from their mistake wouldnt you.

You dont have to trust Uncle Sam, you have to (trust/dont trust) the source code.

What they said they would do bears little resemblence to what they have tried to do.

Elections are fought on many topics, its naive to think the winning party has popular support for every policy they took to the election.

The Government did not win a majority in the senate, the people chose not to give them a mandate.

A recent essentila poll showed that 38% of people think Australia (and others) shoudl oppose a price on carbon, 39 opposed the idea, others dont know.

Never mind, revenge is a sweet dish in politics, one term Tony is going to lead his party to a historic defeat that his party might never recover from.

Na, it will all be needed to make big domes to protect the cities.