> 1) Both variants (and representative individuals e.g. RMS and Theo) > encourage making useful software, using the software, and making money > from the software.
This is putting words in both these individuals mouth. You should not do that. You have no idea why either one of these chose to do what they did. You can only guess. > > 2) Copyright statements (aka licenses) are just another tool. Different > tools are needed to accomplish different tasks. Use the right tool for > the right job. Get over it. copyright != license This has been explained on these lists many time before. Theo has done some pretty good writeups on this. > > 3) There is one difference between the two in one aspect of how > 'freedom' is defined, especially in the context of software copyright > statements. They're not going to agree, they don't have to agree. > Get over it. The courts tend to use the dictionary definition of words that in dispute. It has been pointed out beyond any reasonable doubt that rms uses the word freedom incorrectly. Since he is fully aware of that I can only deduce that he has some sort of agenda. > > 4) Other than that difference, there is great overlap between the chosen > copyright statements. That appears to be the main idea behind Pau's > comment. There is no such thing as "copyright statements". There are copyrights that tell the world who the work belongs to and then there are licenses that stipulate how one can use the copyrighted work. > > 5) Cultivating antagonism between allies *is* a key part of the strategy > used by the main opponent to OpenBSD. It wastes resources. In > contrast, constructive competition leads to improvement. The cultivator here was rms. He lies and then contorts words to meet his reality. He trolled our lists with his drivel. We just disagreed and he got a little more than he bargained for.
