Some freedoms come into conflict with other freedoms. For example, my supposed freedom to kill you comes into conflict with your freedom to live. In the same fashion, if you integrate free code into a privative/proprietary software, that code would stop having <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#Definition">Freedom 3</a>: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.<br>
<br>If you fancy that kind of freedoms (the freedom of removing your own code's freedoms), you should search for a BSD-like license. Me, I don't like those BSD licenses.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Reinier Bakels <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:r.bakels@planet.nl">r.bakels@planet.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
One does not want Microsoft or<br>
Philips to take open source code, say "thank you", and incorporate it in<br>
closed source commercial code.<br>
<br>
Why do you choose the terms "open source" and "closed source"<br>
(which avoid the issue of freedom), rather than the terms "free software"<br>
and "proprietary software" which refer to freedom?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I apologize (again), I forgot how important terminology is (and sensitive).<br>
But, frankly, doesn't the above scenario demonstrate that "free software" is not entirely free? It may seem paradoxical, but Microsoft does *not* have the freedom to integrate "free" code in its proprietary products?<br>
</blockquote></div><br>