> Which is odd, because it feels like it is totally against the spirit of the free software movement. And yet, it is completely within the original intended sp

> Which is odd, because it feels like it is totally against the spirit of the free software movement. And yet, it is completely within the original intended spirit. It is not about "giving source code away for free", it is about the user (who may very well have paid for the right to use the software) being "free" to do whatever they want with it...up to and including modifying the source code for their own benefit. With traditional proprietary (aka "non-free") software, even if you had access to the source code, you are not legally allowed to modify it. And then GPL goes a step further and allows you to redistribute your modifications! That's freedom. The idea that "open source" means "give everything away" is imho one of the primary mistakes of the "free software" movement. and why RMS now encourages the term "libre software" instead. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html