I have to reply to this horse shit.
> Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really

quoted text
> change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when

> it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use

> it if they offer it under the same restrictions it has been

> originally offered, then this is also fair and square. It's his code,

> his copyright. Take it as it is or leave it. As simple as that.

Bullshit.  Code will remain free.  A newer version can be closed but

code that has been published under the BSD/ISC license is free forever.

Just like code published under the GPL license will remain un-free

forever.
>

quoted text
> Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with

> GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if

> Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a

> closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes

> make the free software work on the device in the first place, the

> software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the

> software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to

> buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the

> originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore,

> then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software

> unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it

> can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed

> software.

You are talking without saying anything.  What is your fucking point?
>

quoted text
> Think one step further. Take computers. Take computers that

> incoporate hardware that checks wether you run a signed binary from a

> particular vendor only. What use is BSD "free" code then? None at

> all. You'll have to start reverse-engineering. That's not a myth,

> that's not propaganda, that's simply a fact and that's a danger the

> Free Software Foundation wants to ward off by offering the GPL.

> You'll say: hey, what does it matter? I have plenty of choices in

> computer devices. What happens, when that is going to change? The GPL

> FORCES people to respect users rights to run free software on any

> devices that have been delivered with software based on free software

> and that ain't a bad idea at all. In fact it's pretty clever.

No it doesn't force anyone to do anything.  People/companies CHOOSE to

free up code because it's the shit these days.  I can promise you that

most changed GPL code never gets sent back.
>

quoted text
> There are many cases where a GPL license is the only sensible choice

> in my opinion. Of course, I don't reject the BSD license either. It

> all depends on what you want to bring about and secure. There is no

> one-and-only-free license.

The only good use so for of the GPL is java.  Sun gets to pretend to put

"free" code out there and it is completely protected by the GPL.  It will

never take any patches from the community; it simply wants to retain

full control.  The joke is on GPL since it protects the companies it

"hates".  One has got to love unforeseen consequences.
>

quoted text
> >>opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free"

> >

> >And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL

> >should not

> >be labeled "free" in the first place.

>

> I simply can't follow this absolute rejection of the positive effect

> the GPL ensures. It's not that the BSD license and GPL license fight

> a battle for world domination. Not that it would be fair, given the

> "viral" character of the GPL... :-P

It is because you do not understand the definition of free.  Let me

quote some relevant passages from dictionary.com:

 * exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc.

 * able to do something at will

 * exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains,

   burdens, etc.

 * given without consideration of a return or reward

 * not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.
Those are some of the entries.  The GPL is 100% NOT compatible with the

word free.  That's why people who can read call the GPL monkeys morons.
GPL is as free as communism.