if I use this rubber band, this tiny insignificant piece of my much larger brilliant machine I will be obligated to share the blueprints for my gold-making mach

if I use this rubber band, this tiny insignificant piece of my much larger brilliant machine I will be obligated to share the blueprints for my gold-making machine whenever I sell it. Uh, isn't that the point of the GPL and free software? To share and exchange ideas and discourage restrictive licenses? (I use the MIT license, but also like the WTFPL) I like the WTFPL too, but I'm not going to let anyone do "what the f^ck" the want with it when this involves source code freedom being later restricted by some other dev who doesn't want his "blueprints" revealed. Permissive licenses are a truly free way to share code because they recognize that it doesn't always make sense to open-source a derivative project. I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you, but as I said the point of the GPL is to prevent proprietary devs from restricting users with EULAs and allows freedom and sharing (as do open-source licenses, but more pro-freedom.) This whole article really seems to equate open-source and free software into one package, and then trys to link that with proprietary software by saying we shouldn't restrict proprietary devs from restricting users. Free software is as different from open-source software as GNU is to BSD. I have no objections against open-source software, but I (personally) would rather encourage freedom than "openness" when coding. If a dev doesn't want his ideas "exposed" then let him/her build their own libraries and write their own licenses. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...