Well yes, since you mentioned it, I think that's the author's right.
Having the opinion that all software should be free, that doesn't mean I want to force people into doing it, as that is indeed in opposition with the idea of freedom.
through the threat of legal actions
What threats? The only threats I'm seeing from FSF are in response to GPL-violations. If a software author chose GPL, that was his right and it doesn't mean you can relicense it as BSD.
Well yes, since you mentioned it, I think that's the author's right.
That's nice, but seeing as you seem to be defending the GPL, how I'm I supposed to collect my $50, if the next dev down the road packages up my code as an application, and makes it available free, with source code and what not. In the real world, I can no longer get paid for my software in such a circumstance. Or how about you produce a module, I see the module, recognise that I could make it substantially better, but with a non-legligeable investment of time. I would like to be compensated for making the software better, or I'm simply not going to bother. I, as a developer, do not have the right to develop a module of software that uses a GPLed module of software, and then sell it as closed source (to stop someone else from packaging up my work and distributing it for free).
The GPL is rather good at giving freedom to end users, provided that the end-user is a competent programmer. The GPL is lousy at giving freedom to programmers that want to add value to GPLed software, which in the long term ends up costing non-technical end-users access to better software.
What threats?
What do you think the GPL is? It's a threat to use legal remedies if you don't play by the rules of the GPL. Without that implicit threat, we could just ignore the GPL as a rather boring piece of irrelevant text.
seeing as you seem to be defending the GPL,
how I'm I supposed to collect my $50
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said authors should only license their work under GPL or compatible - my whole freaking point was that it is in their right to do whatever they want.
This opinion is not however opposed to my other opinion, that all software should be free. Because all software should be free by choice, not by law.
Also notice how I explicitly mark these as being opinions, that's because I leave room for considering errors in my judgment.
I am also not holly - I work on proprietary software all day long right now. I also think products in general ARE OK for now to be proprietary, but the platforms themselves ARE natural monopolies, going against what capitalism is about and are the scourge of this industry.
Of course this is not the opinion of Stallman which thinks absolutely all software should be free right now -- I can't blame the man since he's been warning us about all the dangers of closed software since the 70'ties and he must feel tired repeating the same thing over and over again, while being right and ridiculed at the same time.
Or how about you produce a module, I see the module, recognise that I could make it substantially better, but with a non-legligeable investment of time. I would like to be compensated for making the software better, or I'm simply not going to bother. I, as a developer, do not have the right to develop a module of software that uses a GPLed module of software, and then sell it as closed source (to stop someone else from packaging up my work and distributing it for free).
Yes, if you've released your software under the GPL, collecting money by granting access to it in exchange for money is not a feasible business model. There are other ways, though. Think along the lines of providing support. You could also sign a contract in advance, exchanging a GPL application for a mountain of cold hard cash.
What threats? What do you think the GPL is? It's a threat to use legal remedies if you don't play by the rules of the GPL. Without that implicit threat, we could just ignore the GPL as a rather boring piece of irrelevant text.
This is true of any contract or license. I've not heard the FSF or Stallman argue for the abolishment of contract law.
> granting access to it in exchange for money is not a feasible business model. There are other ways, though. Think along the lines of providing support. You could also sign a contract in advance, exchanging a GPL application for a mountain of cold hard cash.
That's great, now all you need to do is find programmers willing to accept n dollars instead of n×100 dollars.
Having the opinion that all software should be free, that doesn't mean I want to force people into doing it, as that is indeed in opposition with the idea of freedom.
What threats? The only threats I'm seeing from FSF are in response to GPL-violations. If a software author chose GPL, that was his right and it doesn't mean you can relicense it as BSD.