Darrin Chandler wrote:
 > There seems to be a subtext in your message that one license is more
 > free than the other, and that the more free license is the GPL. This is
 > not true.

I like both licenses and use software under both licenses. For software I
write, I can easily see scenarios where I would use BSD, and others GPL.

 > Offering something to someone as "free" with one hand, while taking back
 > rights with the other is not free. BSD/MIT/ISC licenses retain a very
 > minimal set of rights to the original author(s), and give away
 > everything else. Whatever the merits of ISC v. GPL, there's really no
 > debate on which is more free.

Debate is inevitable: freedom is difficult to define. An individual's
concept of freedom depends on their priorities and ideals. There just
isn't one license that can meet everyone's requirements, or agree with
everyone's ideology.

The real value in these discussions for me lies in exploring what freedoms
each license protects, and how they enhance the public good. Even stepping
on each other's toes is good in a way: it means free speech is happening.

In the end, I see licenses as tools, not dogma. As such, I refuse to
be converted to either side. I can't be more even-handed than that.

-Ken