> I would suggest that it would be better framed as "is the guarantee of future source access sufficiently important that it effects their choice of tools?" Th

> I would suggest that it would be better framed as "is the guarantee of future source access sufficiently important that it effects their choice of tools?" This is also a false dichotomy, although more cunningly hidden. It still assumes that giving users source access is somehow a hindrance to the creation of high quality software but Freedom and quality are orthogonal axises. Removing freedom to see the source might not effect peoples choice it's self I agree, but really why should it also effect the quality of the software? The obvious answer is software developed within business models based on vendor lock-in. However if you ask customers, "is the guarantee of freedom to change suppliers sufficiently important to your choice of supplier?" You'll get a very different set of answers. > ...This is an incredibly egotistical position... I agree. GPL is not a license for developers, it's for users. In particular it's about giving users the choice of who to work with, and making it easy for them to do so. Whether that means modifying software themselves, directly paying people to modify software or simply changing some URLs in a config file (e.g. rsync.net) they have the freedom to choose. A freedom that is enforced directly in the programs they use, not via convenient business arrangements.