I'll put it short and clear because you seem to be utterly confused:
-I don't care if you don't consider GPL to be a "free license". I don't agree with your opinion on that, but I take it as just that, an opinion, and that's not what I've been arguing about (since you seem to be impervious to the concept and value of software itself being free it would be pointless arguing with you anyway, it's like talking to a wall). Go back and re-read my posts.
-You are perfectly entitled to not liking the GPL. Again that's up to who's freedom you value, and since (as you stated before) your focus in on distributors and you don't see value in code itself being free, it's completely reasonable that you prefer BSD-style licenses.
-What I take issue with is all the nonsense about slavery and deception, using Stallman's level rethoric.
Sorry ichi, but it's not an opinion - it's a fact. A very simple, proven fact that I've logically explained why it can't be true. The sheer hypocracy of you claiming -I- am the brick wall, when you've done nothing to actually read and follow the thread, and have merely parroted hollow, canned responses like some sort of bot.
Stallman resorts to using his own proprietary definitions and re-definitions of words to favour his cause, his misappropriation of the term "freedom" to refer to something that is only free in his opinion is dishonest and misleading.
I have numerous times, logically gone through the flow why the restrictions makes the GPL non-free, for you to only then jump back to a previous point in time and start parroting a point that we've already discussed.
I did not start out using Stallman's own brand of rhetoric, but in the face of you being clearly not interested to follow the topic I felt it would be the better means of communicating with someone who obviously is not interested in a reasoned discussion, and merely wants everyone to accept his word verbatim.
Are you so fanatic that you have to look down on everyone who doesn't agree with your own values?
What's the point of freedom if you are goint to bitch about what other people do with it? That comes as quite hypocritical, you are complaining about people doing exactly the only single thing BSD allows that GPL does not.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The usual argument of BSD supporters is that it doesn't matter if someone takes your source and closes it because your original source still remains free, so why do you care if someone takes a BSD source and distributes it under a license that better fits other use cases? Because that's they whole reason of re-licensing it under the GPL.
Oh ichi, did you even bother to read the section you're replying to here? I very clearly explained it.
How large a font-size am I going to have to make the sentance where I point out the obvious disconnect between permitting something out of principal (freedom) - and having to like it? 72pt maybe?
You're basically saying to support freedom of speech, you would have to accept and agree with every possible viewpoint that results from said freedom. Do I also have to point out how absurd and impossible that would be to you?
Nice try at dodging it.
I didn't dodge it at all, but since you evidently can't see beyond your own nose I'll "break it down" for you.
Windows is the most used platform, Linux is the most used open-source kernel. Get it?
You would think that, say, Oracle would have released Unbreakable BSD instead of Unbreakable Linux (considering that the whole point of the distro was just running their own proprietary DB) if they felt they were being "enslaved" by the license. And by releasing a BSD OS they'd also submit their contributions to BSD and not to the Linux kernel, again if only to not be "enslaved".
I don't think Oracle would know sense if it slapped them in the face. Or any large multi-layered corporation packed to the brim with know-nothing managers for that matter. Hell, that lack of sense is why we're here in the first place.