> What about the developer vs the user? No, that's the false dicothomy GPL proponents keep bringing up. The freedom to modify code and the freedom to distribu

> What about the developer vs the user? No, that's the false dicothomy GPL proponents keep bringing up. The freedom to modify code and the freedom to distribute the software (modified or not), is something you claim to be trying to be protecting for the users' sake, but as soon as I try to exercise these freedoms, you call me a developer and a distributor. If one can't exercise these freedoms without being labelled as such, these aren't user freedoms at all. But for me, as a user, the freedom to share (modified or not) software with other users is a very important way to help others out, and you people keep telling me there's a conflict in that. > I believe that I should have the source of anything I run; in such a case you withholding source from me is an attack on my freedom. Strawman argument. I'm discussing the scenario where I help people out by giving them software they need, and ask for. I'm not withholding anything, but if they're not requesting the source code, I'm not going to make life inconvenient for both of us by forcing it on them anyway. And just because I can help someone out at time t doesn't mean I can promise to give them the source code years after. It just doesn't work that way. Not making such a promise, however, is very different from "withholding source", which is the straw man you're making. > Two points 1) Yes, I can choose to use whatever license I like for my own software. That has nothing to do with this discussion. Dismissed. 2) Then you do not understand what problems people have in the real world. If their system is broken and I'm giving them a file to fix that, I'd be very much of a douchebag to force them to download a potentially large archive full of source they don't need. Then tell them to download the tools to extract it (on their system that desperately needs help). Then tell them to remove all that crap so they can get just that one file they needed. Likewise it would be very sad if I had to tell them that no, I cannot help you now by giving this file because I would need to find and download the source for it (the binary might've been compiled years ago). Why do you have to oblige me with crap that doesn't help me nor the person I'm helping? And you are calling that freedom? No, it's not. And this "freedom" is the very reason I really don't help people much these days, or if I do, I do it either illegally or with truly free software, not this fake kind of free that tells me to bugger off should I dare share. > You're not helping them if you're not providing the source in my opinion. You're simply band-aiding a problem at best and forcing complacency against usage of their own device at worst. Your opinions don't fix people's software problems. Sometimes, files might. But there we go. Someone needs help, I help him, and the GPL fanatics say, oh look, clarry just almost slaved and murdered somebody because he didn't suffocate that poor fellow with a truckload of source code. So evil. The person who was helped thanks me and I might give him a tip as to how to avoid the problem in the future. Sure sure, you think I'm not helping him. He should just move to the first world and get a broadband so he can afford to download, who knows, maybe dozens or even hundreds of megabytes of source he doesn't need? And of course I'm responsible for finding and distributing all that, with my not-so-fast line. You think I'm not helping, I think you're insane. What ad hominem?