Ja da, cobber!

The Harvard Lampoon said everything that needs saying about the Ring trilogy in _Bored of the Rings_...

Not only no but hell no, because the phrase "allowing people to close your code" is a lie. Nobody can ever close my code, no matter what license I release it under. They can close *their* code, and I have no right to tell them they may not.

If the user doesn't want to have code he can't modify, then he has other options. Similarly, if the user wants to have code that functions better for him and doesn't care about the right to modify it, he has the right to make that choice - a right the Stallmanites would deny him.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. "FTFY" is just a sign that you are unable to argue coherently without changing the argument you're replying to.

Even if so - and I'd argue that - there's simply no rational basis on which to claim that the GPL is more free than the BSD license. Thus, you're destroying freedom to protect it. Tell me, is all that sex promoting virginity? The original story says that just the opposite is happening: people are, instead, actually protecting virginity.

If you're going to pursue that course of action, then don't call it "protecting freedom". That's a simple, bald-faced lie.

You don't maximize freedom by destroying it. The BSD license destroys no freedoms. The GPL does. It's truly that simple.

This is why saying that the GPL is about freedom is in the same category as the classic "f***ing for virginity". GPL zealots are arguing by redefinition, and using the concept of "freedom" to mean something entirely different and wrapping themselves in its mantle.

If you want true freedom - which must always include the freedom to do things that piss others off without actually harming them - then you should choose some other license than a Stallmanite one.

Which is exactly why the GPLv3 is so widely rejected.