bofh wrote:
quoted text
> On Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@ieee.org> wrote:
>   
>> How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
>> freedom, given that not only does it allow me to make money doing
>> something I find fun, but also enjoy summer weekends in the sun
>> watchings kids have fun, too?
>>     
> Come now, there are serious questions about whether Richards line in
> the sand is in the correct place, but this question is silly.  He's
> not talking about your personal freedom, he's talking about end user's
> freedom.  GPL is about the end user's freedom.  BSD is about the
> developer's freedom.  The two does not have to meet.
>
> This is why there's such a big deal over OOXML right now.
No, this is exactly on point.  As I understand his view, Richard seems 
to think that any software licensed under a schema that doesn't meet his 
definition of "free" is bad/unethical/whatever, and for an OS to support 
said software, even if only by reference, is not only also bad, but also 
diminishes my own freedom.  I fail to see how using a software package 
(remember, *I* would be the end user here), proprietary and 
license-restricted though it may be, somehow causes a loss in my 
freedom.  I am free to (not) use/purchase such software as I see fit, 
and don't understand why forking over some cash would somehow result in 
my losing something, when in my mind, I'm actually coming out ahead.  
Would I love to see a BSD/ISC/GPL/(insert free license here) 
equivalent?  You bet.  But I won't give up relaxing weekends just to 
make a political statement.