Free?

[foobar]

Don Wrote:

> On 26.10.2011 17:16, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> > On 10/26/2011 12:51 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >
> >> "Jeff Nowakowski"<jeff at dilacero.org> wrote in message
> >>> Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and
> >>> has been voluntarily adopted around the world,
> >
> >> So have the non-viral free licenses.
> >
> > And if I said they were "Free as in dogshit", would this also be "true"
> > and not mudslinging?
> 
> There is a serious point behind it, though.
> The use of "free" in conjunction with the GPL, has a different meaning 
> than "free" normally means.
> 
> The term "free software" is highly misleading, it should probably be 
> spelt "Free Software(tm)". Or "Free* Software.   *Conditions apply."
> 
> Public domain is "free as in free".
> GPL is NOT "free as in free". And they talk about the "libre" sense of 
> free, but it ISN'T free in the libre sense, either! It's "free as in 
> copyleft".
> 
> I wish they would stop using the word "free". I think it's dishonest 
> marketing spin. Just use "copyleft".
> 
> Disclaimer: I have released some code under the GPL.

To me this whole discussion looks like trying to call an agnostic an "atheist" which is IMHO not correct. 
To me, GPL is intuitively more "free" than public domain. 
The concept of "free" depends heavily on POV and I'd argue that you're looking at this from a wrong perspective: 
there are two freedoms in conflict here, that of the original owner's and that of his respective users and while you want the latter, the GPL enforces the former.
GPL is VERY free. This thread speaks of trying to make the original work *less* free by allowing users to close it and modify without contributing back. 

I understand that this limits us from incorporating GPL work in phobos. but that is a feature and not a bug in the definition of "freedom".