Re: Shut it you tedious old windbag
"BSD-type licenses do *not* require the publication of source code when distributing binaries. Also, BSD-type license do *not* restrict the license type to Free Only - meaning publication of source code when distributing binaries - when creating a "derived work"."
I hope you are pedantically arguing over the definition assigned to 'FOSS' and not trying to imply that a more restrictive license is more free.
If someone is not restricted in making a binary closed source, the license is more free (as you say, as in freedom, not cost)
Freedom is defined as what control the receiver of a product has. I've often seen GNU fans perversely try to argue that more control the *provider* of a product has makes more free, when it is exactly the opposite.
Cue the required car analogy:
I produce a car that I call more free (as in freedom) because one rule to ownership is that you must pick up any hitchhikers you see, thus promoting a free and fair ability to travel the land.
It's obvious to the buyer that this is a restriction, making their car less free (to them) than any normal one
Biting the hand that feeds IT
