> Nonsense, by that logic your proprietary software is taking away users 'right' to use your proprietary software in an open source context.
Indeed, it is. The difference is that we're not intellectually dishonest about it, and don't try to dress up the mutual exchange of value (user's money for our code) in some sort of ridiculous redefinition of "freedom", and we certainly don't claim to be "more free" than liberally licensed open-source software.
>and don't try to dress up the mutual exchange of value (user's money for our code) in some sort of ridiculous redefinition of "freedom"
Bullshit, this is what you've been trying to do during this entire discussion. You claim over and over again that the the user has the 'freedom' not to use proprietary software.
But when that same 'freedom' is directed at developers who has the same 'freedom' not to use GPL licenced code, then suddenly you say their 'rights' are being taken away.
According to you proprietary developers are somehow robbed of a 'right' when they can't use GPL licenced code, which is nonsense as the only right they have to use ANY code is by the conditions set by the code owner, be it conditions of a licence or conditions of monetary compensation.
Your hypocrisy shines through your entire line of poorly constructed arguments.
You dislike GPL because you as a proprietary developer can't use that code, which for some reason you think you have a 'right' to.
> You dislike GPL because you as a proprietary developer can't use that code, which for some reason you think you have a 'right' to.
You're being obtuse; I've never said what you claim. What I've said, repeatedly, is that the the GPL grants fewer freedoms than liberal licenses such as the MIT license or the BSD license; it doesn't "protect" or "grant" any "freedoms" that the MIT and BSD licenses don't already provide themselves.
What the GPL does do is restrict usage to enforce a quid-pro-quo relationship on its users, with the political goal of leveraging network effects to push a Marxist ideology of dismantling private ownership in favor of shared ownership of the means of production.
If the goal was 'freedom', then it would be enough to provide users with free access to your code; nobody can deny them that free access once it's provided. The goal isn't freedom, however, and painting it as such is both intellectually shallow and dishonest.
Indeed, it is. The difference is that we're not intellectually dishonest about it, and don't try to dress up the mutual exchange of value (user's money for our code) in some sort of ridiculous redefinition of "freedom", and we certainly don't claim to be "more free" than liberally licensed open-source software.