Arguably, the GPL license, and the free software politics of Stallman make software less free. Being forced to distribute changes doesn't represent freedom for

Arguably, the GPL license, and the free software politics of Stallman make software less free. Being forced to distribute changes doesn't represent freedom for users of GPL software. Removing the ability of others to keep secret their source that uses GPL software isn't freedom. Limiting the ability of others to commercialise software that uses GPL isn't freedom. Most of the discussions around GPL have a anti-corporate flavour to them, with a large helping of righteous indignation about said corporations monetising the software. When did free software become about money? The GPL licence has become all about money since it's often offered as a restrictive licence in combination with a commercial licence. I feel like the people most disadvantaged by GPL software are individual programmers and small teams who could most benefit from using open source software and make a living out of it. Of course people can choose whichever licences they want, but claiming to be the pinnacle of free software is rich, to say the least.