On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:41:27PM -0600, Ken Ismert wrote:

quoted text
> Darrin Chandler wrote:

>

> > 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.

No, I'm not talking about "what Freedom means to me." Freedom isn't

difficult to define. Just look it up in a dictionary. BSD/MIT/ISC

licenses are more Free than GPL. There's nothing to debate about that.

It's just the way things are.
> The real value in these discussions for me lies in exploring what freedoms

quoted text
> 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.

If you stop saying "free" and "freedoms" and find a more accurate word I

think your meaning will come through better.
> In the end, I see licenses as tools, not dogma. As such, I refuse to

quoted text
> be converted to either side. I can't be more even-handed than that.

You are correct. They are tools, and should be used as such. After

having discussions with some people I have seen them *correctly* pick

GPL, since it has the effects they desire. And, I've also seen people

pick a BSD license even though they are GNU/Linux users. Good, in both

cases, since the license represented their views.
--

Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG

dwchandler@stilyagin.com   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/

http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation