GPL continued: "and because we came up with all these crazy rules, you'1l probably come across other free software (including ours) whose rules you can't abide by while playing by ours, so you're not permitted to do much to remix and redistribute these two code bases... sorry, you may not! but you're still free! ehehe! you're still free because you're a user and if you're trying to exercise the two or three freedoms that are relevant to developers and distributors, your freedoms no longer matter! you still have these freedoms though, even though you may not!"
And if you still want to exercise these freedoms, you're like, you want to kill people ... that's crazy!
I wish you'd said this in a less childish way. The point about GPLv2/v3 conflicts demonstrating how unfree the GPL can be is good, but the post itself is downvotable.
I'm not proud of the way I put it, but I guess that just shows how tired I am of this argument. The same hypocritical claims about GPL being free despite very obviously denying very important freedoms are repeated all over the place, and then I'm a killer and a developer (how evil of me to patch that code for someone!) and all that, because that's the most coherent arguments people can make. Ignoring the actually relevant freedoms at hand and going into meta-discussion about the meaning of freedom and making analogies concerning completely unrelated things (such as killing or otherwise harming) is how they argue when they can't address the problem -- if they don't just flat out say that I don't need that freedom to share or mix code... Yes I'm very tired of it.
Life goes on, and I continue not to share a large body of GPLv2 licensed code with anybody because it would be illegal for me to do so. I keep telling them it's because the license is not free, but it just doesn't seem to work.
And if you still want to exercise these freedoms, you're like, you want to kill people ... that's crazy!