> Copyright, patent, and trade secret laws restrict freedoms; open source just gives some of them back.
I can't say this is 100% true.
OSI licenses divide into two camps, usually called "permissive" and "copyleft". Even permissive licenses usually restrict the freedom to publish the source without the author's name, which is, while trivial, a restriction nonetheless.
But copyleft licenses restrict the ability to modify the source without publishing your modifications. This is indeed a significant restriction of freedom, and why the BSD/MIT/etc camp are called "permissive", because copyleft is less permissive.
I prefer the permissive licenses for this very reason, although I'm not opposed to using or contributing to GPL-licensed code.
Now, you may say that the freedom hereby restricted is justly restricted, as we justly restrict the freedom to, say, put chalk in milk. I find it more consistent to reject the restrictions of copyright entirely rather than exploit them to force sharing; after all, the only way to use the clause in GPL requiring source sharing is to pursue satisfaction through the court system.
One thing on which I'm sure we can agree: both of these camps are producing open source software, and 'source available' is an entirely separate state of affairs which cannot be included.
Copyright laws are what restrict the freedom to publish the source without the author's name or to copy or modify the source. Open-source licenses give some of those freedoms back, but, in some cases, not all of them.
I can't say this is 100% true.
OSI licenses divide into two camps, usually called "permissive" and "copyleft". Even permissive licenses usually restrict the freedom to publish the source without the author's name, which is, while trivial, a restriction nonetheless.
But copyleft licenses restrict the ability to modify the source without publishing your modifications. This is indeed a significant restriction of freedom, and why the BSD/MIT/etc camp are called "permissive", because copyleft is less permissive.
I prefer the permissive licenses for this very reason, although I'm not opposed to using or contributing to GPL-licensed code.
Now, you may say that the freedom hereby restricted is justly restricted, as we justly restrict the freedom to, say, put chalk in milk. I find it more consistent to reject the restrictions of copyright entirely rather than exploit them to force sharing; after all, the only way to use the clause in GPL requiring source sharing is to pursue satisfaction through the court system.
One thing on which I'm sure we can agree: both of these camps are producing open source software, and 'source available' is an entirely separate state of affairs which cannot be included.