> Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions? I don't see where paulhauggis is claiming he's entitled to use othe

> Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions? I don't see where paulhauggis is claiming he's entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions. Can you point out that claim explicitly for me? (edit: removed a stray nonsensical "it" for clarity) > If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. This is what I generally do when it comes to GPLed libraries. Even closed source APIs generally grant me more "freedom" as a developer in how I redistribute my own programs invoking those APIs. But hey, it's their right to release GPLed software. I make use of some GPLed software (generally only as a user, not a developer) and thank their developers for their contributions. ...but I don't think it's outrageous to find their definition of "free" a little odd, I get why it can be hard to follow their line of reasoning, and don't see the harm in trying to dig into the reasoning behind using the GPL over, say, a more permissive license such as MIT. Personally, I'm more inclined to release under permissive licenses - but this is your chance to convince paulhauggis of the merits of the former, no?