> Just to be clear that all this only makes sense if we assume that intellectual property is a sham.
I do. It's a useful sham, however, so I'd think twice before abolishing it.
> So with the BSD […]
I don't think the GPL forces you to choose free software. GPL software just can't be used to make proprietary software. Right now, you still have plenty of proprietary alternatives. People still buy them. You still have the choice. In the end, if the GPL takes over, that will be because everybody who didn't chose it will be out of business. I'm not sure this is bad in any way.
I think what you actually don't like about the GPL is its give and take nature: if you don't give, you can't take. So, being forced to give imply being forced to take. If nobody is forced to take, nobody is forced to give.
Do you think anyone is somehow forced to take? Meaning, does anyone is forced to distribute GPL derived work? Do you have any example (actual or hypothetical)?
I do. It's a useful sham, however, so I'd think twice before abolishing it.
> So with the BSD […]
I don't think the GPL forces you to choose free software. GPL software just can't be used to make proprietary software. Right now, you still have plenty of proprietary alternatives. People still buy them. You still have the choice. In the end, if the GPL takes over, that will be because everybody who didn't chose it will be out of business. I'm not sure this is bad in any way.
I think what you actually don't like about the GPL is its give and take nature: if you don't give, you can't take. So, being forced to give imply being forced to take. If nobody is forced to take, nobody is forced to give.
Do you think anyone is somehow forced to take? Meaning, does anyone is forced to distribute GPL derived work? Do you have any example (actual or hypothetical)?