Sebastien Carlier wrote:

quoted text
> So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is "good freedom"

> and "bad freedom", and that coercion is needed to allow "good freedom"

> to prevail.  I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what

> follows.

>

>

    Total freedom without coercion is anarchy.

    By adopting a copyright and a license BSD has rejected anarchy and

    accepted the coercive force of the law. Repeatedly there have been

    cries on this list to force the Linux/GPL developers into complying

with the BSD License.

    The BSD License defines obeying copyright law, complying with the

license and crediting the

    original authors as acceptable restrictions on one's freedoms.

    Failing to preserve a copyright/license/credit is a BSD example of a

"Bad Freedom"
    The only distinction between a BSD License and the GPL is the

author's view of

    which freedoms are good and which are bad. 
   If you are really claiming that BSD Licenses offer "total freedom",

   make's no distinctions between the values of different freedoms,

   and is completely non-coercive then why are BSD developers upset over

The Atheros HAL ?

   The anger is because more freedom has been taken than your license

offered.
    You can not have total freedom absent coercion, and copyright's and

licenses.

     They are incompatible.
--

Dave Lynch 					  	    DLA Systems

Software Development:  				         Embedded Linux

717.627.3770 	       dhlii@dlasys.net 	  http://www.dlasys.net

fax: 1.253.369.9244 			           Cell: 1.717.587.7774

Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

Albert Einstein