IMO, using "free software" to describe GPL work doesn't really make sense. If I give you something, but require you to adhere to certain conditions, it's not re

IMO, using "free software" to describe GPL work doesn't really make sense. If I give you something, but require you to adhere to certain conditions, it's not really "free". Say, if Bertram Gilfoyle lets you live in an apartment he owns as long as you remain a practicing member of the Church of Satan, that's not really "free", now, is it? Of course, this idea of "freedom" is on a spectrum. By my lights, the MIT license is more free than the GPL because it imposes fewer restrictions on the user. Personally, I don't let GPL software come anywhere near anything I'm working on. I don't even like using GCC, and was very happy when LLVM appeared on the scene with a less-scary license.