You have to remember that Washington has the "764-HERO" number posted all up and down its freeways so that drivers can tattle on people who use the HOV lanes with less than the appropriate number of people in the car. This state is fucked.

Sorry, that was my point... made in a rather sarcastic way.

God damn it...I can't help but continually be drawn into this. You cannot possibly be equating non-GPLed software to slavery...or can you? That is, excuse me, the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard.

Do you honestly believe that all software companies should just shut their doors, or give their products away by licensing it in such a way that everyone else can also release it(which is the same as shutting their doors)? I suppose you think that all artists (authors, musicians, etc...) should give their product away as well? That anything that anyone creates magically belongs to the whole of humanity? That it has no value at all? If you do then you are the most short-sighted individual I have ever come across. Money must be exchanged for services rendered (software, books, music) or they will cease to exist. It is not free to make them and somewhere along the way there has to be an exchange of money or the entire financial system breaks down (even worse than it is now). And before you pipe up with the mantra: "release your software for free and then charge for services!" please answer the following question: "Why in the fuck do you think your 'services' have a value when the software does not?".

<dragged_into_troll_debate>
The end-use has just as much access to the original project under Apache (or BSD) as they do under the GPL...but they may not necessarily have access to the changes that a developer makes to the original. I don't see this as a giant hurdle since the only people who would give a flying fuck about source are developers and they are perfectly capable (maybe) of adding whatever changes they want to the original.
</dragged_into_troll_debate>

I tend to agree with you and if you build a matrix of the "freedoms" between the GPL, Apache and BSD you will find the only "freedom" that the GPL adds that others do not is: "You MUST share all changes you make to the code with whomever asks for it, so long as your code is made for public consumption". That is a grossly simple definition of the GPL but the essence is right.

I am not anti-GPL so much as I am anti this rabid sensationalism that software is made to be free. Software takes time, money, and skill to create and if the creator wishes to restrict its use that is their choice.

There is nothing stopping other from enjoying your work under the Apache license.

Um... the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL in that you can do anything you want with it, including closing it if you are so inclined. Plus you don't have to buy into the feverish and rabid philosophy of the majority of GPL disciples.

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?

I didn't know Hurd was on Sourceforge.

:-) It is popular to bash MS but I gotta say that .NET does nearly everything RIGHT when it comes to web applications. That being said, it's not like PHP forces developers to write shitty code. Using something like Smarty can help create clean PHP code where the view is entirely separated from the logic.