See I told you logic wouldn't work for you.

The dictionary definition of freedom is no restrictions therefore more
restriction is less free.  Not sure how you can argue that.

ISC has one restriction, the GPL has numerous therefore less free.
Again not sure how this is debatable.

If you prefer the GPL because you think communism was (is??) a good idea
then more power to you.  Changing dictionary definitions to match your
reality is unscientific at best.

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:02:23AM -0300, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
quoted text
> >
> > Lets try it.
> >
> > 0 < X < (Y + Z)
> > Y > 0
> > Z > 0
> >
> > ISC = X
> > GPL = X + Y + Z
> >
> > Logical enough for you?
> >
> 
> If you assume that the definition of freedom is the number of
> restrictions, then neither ISC nor GPL are free. The only free
> license would be no license at all. Public domain.
> 
> Since _my_ definition of freedom for software is different, I
> reach different conclusions.
> 
> If a package does no restrict the way I use it, does permit me
> to study it and modify it, distribute copies either modified or
> verbatim, gratis or for a fee, then I consider it free, and I
> will use it.
> 
> For me, having to give the source, IF, AND ONLY IF, I distribute
> the software, is fair. I would do it anyway.
> 
> I don't think it's wrong for a copyright holder to ask that.