Ok, ok, apologies accepted.
But you're wrong in saying that I deliberately ignored your point: I've dedicated whole point "2. (...)" above to addressing it. Now that we have finished with "you said I said" games (I hope), lets get to the core of the matter.
So in other words, my priority is on getting people who write code to make it somewhat free (in the sense of "open", not in the sense of "cost"), even if it isn't as free as the GPL. In that sense I feel I am also trying to increase freedom, because I currently see the alternative as being more closed-source, proprietary software.
My experience proves otherwise. Once people decided to release the source under whatever license, they are already over the fence, in the sense that they're not very likely to back away from releasing it at all. If they are told (with polite and convincing arguments) that the license they've chosen is wrong, they are much more likely to release under a better license than not to release at all. OTOH, once considerable amount of time has passed since the release, it becomes much more difficult to change the license to a better one.
Thus, if the final goal is to get as much software as possible under as free licenses as possible, being careful about choosing a right license from the very start is more effective than the "schmicence" attitude.
And finally, please allow me to brainwash you about the words you use. After all, Orwell was right and our words do infuence our thoughts. "Open" is a wrong word as it implies that you can look, but not necessarily can touch (as in patents which are open just fine). Freedom should also include the right to touch and even to take it and walk away with it.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds