> Freedom can't be defined as a freedom from restriction or a Lockean framework of liberty, as Stallman imagines, but rather the freedom to creative endeavors w

> Freedom can't be defined as a freedom from restriction or a Lockean framework of liberty, as Stallman imagines, but rather the freedom to creative endeavors without micromanagement from others. Freedom certainly can be defined in such a way, even if you don't happen to fall in with that definition. Put bluntly the big question between the two major license types is whether you're pushing for individual freedom or collective freedom. Rather I think the point that Stallman misses (or more likely, chooses to argue against) is that many open source programmers deliberately choose not to be "Free Software" political activists, but simply choose open source licenses for technical or social (but not political) reasoning. They don't want to save the world, they want to sling the best code.