I am vocal because I want to develop software that I do not plan to give away but use internally for a startup idea. I also believe in the freedom of others to do the same.

If you are opposed to capitalism then I wont use your software. But, saying it is freedom and I can do whatever I want is disingenuous. I can't call my software I create an asset then as I have to give away IP if I want to go public or sell my company to someone else. This means just my office chair and cpu are the only assets now and I am essentially worthless.

I do not call this freedom. I am not into ripping off someone's code. I am just talking freaking linking. That means if I use printf once in my source code I need the whole thing GPL?? WTF. If it is LGPL (hardly any is as developers do not know the difference in general) then I can say different.

It also comes to show that the developers do not know the difference between GPL and LGPL. Even java has a gnu class path exception for this reason.

Not really.

BSD got it off the ground 1st with the Net/2 tapes of the early internet. If it were not for the 1993 lawsuit by AT&T we would be using FreeBSD probably. Xorg is not GNU. Apache is not GNU. Samba is not GNU. Gnu just remade all the BSD utilities. True there were crappy to non existent compilers for i386 in those days as Unix was for RISC and exotic architectures which is the opposite of today in terms of support.

GNU was considered superior due to the low quality and feature sets of alternatives in the late 1990s here on Slashdot with the exception of Solaris perhaps. Not true anymore as Windows just sucked due to back supported an OS for crippled early 1980s hobbyist micro computer hardware.

I do love free software and was attracted to the abundance of stuff in Linux in 1999. But times do change.

You know yesterday I was researching Milton Friedman on youtube. A very conservative and libertarian economist and a must see if any slashdotter is bored in his interview series as he gives arguments on rights of freedom, individuals, business, and government roles etc.

He advocated getting rid of 5 out of 8 federal departments. The first question was if you were king which would you .... and he said "Stop right there!" Who gives me the right to tell others? The argument went on saying what about your principles of free enterprise and economic benefits? He said if he can't get most people on board to vote for these changes then he is opposed by the principles of freedom even if I am right. He also mentioned what if I am wrong?

The point is freedom is maximized by a limited or non existent role set up by a framework. He calls this the free market capitalism where each other self interests does just that. He believes government should be functioning the same way or any other organization.

So RMS maybe right but he is wrong by enforcing his opinion on others if he truly believes in freedom. Milton would never follow through on his brilliance as freedom is the same in the markets or any organization applying it to others. RMS would argue corporations restrict such freedoms. But really his solution is worse than the problem. I will take Milton Friedmans stance on this by a limited framework where both users and developers do what they will as long as they do not oppose that will on others.

Commercial software in this sense restricted in a sense of the user is willing to pay for a product or service because if the users do not like it the market will produce a competitor. Something RMS does not understand in free market economics.

... coming soon GPL v4.

Clause IV "...any code GPLv4 may not include, link, or run on any non GPLv4."

But serisouly GPLv3 started because of his tantrum with Tivio. It would not surprise me if he did a version 4 if clang takes over.

I think not.

Problem is lets say I do a startup for a social networking with cool instant message and stock quotes or something silly. I being the CEO let my programmers foolish pick whatever code they want and they told me GPL. Since we do not sell software we ARE SAFE. I say ok.

My website takes off and investors kick in and want me to sell and go public and EMC also offers me a ton of money to sell it to them if I choose instead. Oops under Sarbanes Oxley or any private transaction this counts as a sale for either.

JP Morgan flips out and so does EMC during an audit and tells me I have to give away millions of dollars of IP away?? EMC cancels the deal as competitors can now take it and a million clones overnight can compete without the cost EMC has to pay for a competitive advantage over them. Wall Street then says ok since I have no assets I therefore have no value. Not interested.

I get fired from the other owners of the company who then choose to liquidate it for pennies on the dollar is better than nothing.

I can't buy said software. Even if I did the owner can't sell me the rights to the software I linked and worked on as he put it under GPL and other peoples' rights would be violated.

My example is more extreme but give lawyers a real scare. Yes RMS hates commercial software and anything proprietary. We get it but this is like a little logic bomb for any developer wanting to make a living and it is bad for any company. They are not there to collaborate. They are there to make money and giving away IP is stupid as it cost money to produce and is therefore an asset. Might as well hand out money (another asset) while we are at it? So if you scream you ARE STEALING MY CODE will fine I wont use it. Just do not be butt hurt when corporations have an obligation to not use your products for the common good regardless of your intentions unless BSD or public domain.

You also can't pay for electricity and food for people when you do not have money either and now no one will lend you any as you're a defaulter.

The new Greek government wants to default and plans more borrowing?? Complete idiots! Ya I am sure after this banks are just all sooo lining the streets to pay. The voters are stupid as they elected a pm who basically told them what they wanted to hear. No taxes and now no need to work. What could possibly go wrong?

Sometimes I think the general public should not vote. The US constitution calls for Americans to vote for electors for president for this not. Not have an option for a direct candidate

He hasn't even been on the world wide Web yet because Xorg and any browser is not free enough. Never used a cell phone either etc.

In 2001 here there was a common belief on slashdot proprietary software would always be inferior and desktops would all be gnu by now. He still believes this.

Then gnu is proprietary and licensed. Fine I get it. Don't say it's free and say stealing like I steal from Microsoft if I use printf If I want to include. In this definition GNU is the most proprietary license out there.

What if a abiword and virtual box do not meet my needs. Would I be harming myself for purchasing VMWARE Workstation and Office2010 in return?

I am a user who not only is buying but willing to pay for proprietary software. RMS would think I am crazy but I would argue my own self interests are better served investing in better tools for productivity more than the rights for me to get something for free and hack the complicated source code.

How?

It is open source? You can do whatever you wish. If you want to include it then you can. You want to contribute? You can as well.

Many gnu folks mod me down or get mad when I point out that just linking gun code means I can't use it at work. It is viral as the gpl is very strict and anti freedom. Most say just don't steal my work? I am just saying even linking is forbidden so WTF?

Yes that is less free than BSD where people do as they wish.

The rights of the user always triumphs the rights of the developer.

But in this case the user and developer are one. With even Microsoft supporting clang, Android, and Linux development in the latest visual studio alphas it is now emacs that is becoming the most proprietary with locking in. What a bizarre universe this is becoming