I'm blocked from using GPL software the way I want; in that way I'm not free to use GPL software how I want. That is a "freedom," regardless of how you're tryin

I'm blocked from using GPL software the way I want; in that way I'm not free to use GPL software how I want. That is a "freedom," regardless of how you're trying to define the word. FSF is trying to grant one freedom by taking away another, period. Yes, it's my "freedom" to restrict how others copy my resulting software, but it's still a freedom. To claim otherwise is pedantic at best. >If you can not make software without threatening your users, don't try to start by taking GPL software. Umm...other than using it as it's designed and permitted (e.g., gcc), I don't. Any code libraries that are GPL (or even LGPL, except under specific circumstances) are dead to me. I'm annoyed when my time is wasted coming across one on a search. I would even bail on GCC for the superior Clang but I have one package (of many) that needs GCC to build in my current project for a client. Almost all GPL code is likely to lose support compared to any BSD/MIT competition in the long term (except possibly for those packages used in server development, since they can be used commercially without being distributed, circumventing the intent of the GPL). Most non-server developers do their best to avoid linking to GPLed software because they're working on proprietary software. RMS alludes to this in the article: "The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community..." The superior network effects of BSD/MIT-licensed libraries means that those libraries will get more developers, who will fix more bugs and more features, which will then attract more developers, etc. (Not to mention the fact that LLVM is just more awesome than GCC). As a developer I hate to have to rewrite code. Yet I'm forced to if the only code available is GPL; I can't change my business goals or those of my clients for the sake of a goal that's never going to be achieved. Asking me to is naive. The financial reality is that (most of the time) to make money writing software, you need to sell it (and therefore restrict the rights of those you sell it to). The first 80% of a project is the most fun and satisfying; most open source projects rarely make it beyond that first 80% (if they make it that far) [1]. Companies that make money writing software will pay developers to complete the libraries they're using. As those BSD/MIT libraries get better, the GPLed competition will fall behind. [1] Notable exceptions include the abovementioned server software category, where commercial/proprietary developers can use (and therefore will likely contribute to) GPLed code, and projects that have enough income to support full-time commercial development.