[FSF India] Open $ource is as dangerous as M$ (if not more)

[Kalyan Varma]

On 30 Aug 2001, Khuzaima A. Lakdawala wrote:

> That is a very naive (and dangerously misleading) interpretation of
> the word "freedom" propagated by the Open Source camp. In effect, you
> are accepting a definition of "freedom" formulated by people who
> themselves don't care about freedom :) Now *there's* your
> contradiction!
>
> Any freedom, the exercising of which takes away the freedom of others is
> no freedom at all.

According to the Oxford Dictonary

Freedom = Condition of being free and unrestricted
Freedom	= Having personal rights and social and political liberty

	When I write code ( original from scratch ) I own the code.
If my main aim is to make money, I sell it as a proprietary software like
any of the traditional company. If I want to make money and still want
people  to see the code, I release it under the Open Source License.
If I want other to take and , modify it, and redistribute it then I would
release it under GPL. The choice is mine. So I have my personal rights on
the code and am unrestricted by any other licenses. So I have freedom
here.  Now you are saying I *must* release it under GPL to give freedom to
others. So dont I loose my freedom to choose now ???
	If I personally at some point write code I will release it under
GPL. I believe it it. However just coz someone does not release code
under GPL, you cant point at him and say he is taking away everyones
freedom.

- -kalyan