iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them

[Anthony Morton]

> In other words, a planned economy (GPL) versus a free economy (BSD 
> type license).  I'd rather let the market drive improvements than some 
> planned / forced management of the software.

And it's strange that you give OS X as an example - this is a case 
where Apple undertakes 'forced management' by keeping all development 
closed and in-house.  And the approach mostly works.

At the same time you have open-source projects like Apache and TeX, and 
GCC and Emacs, and even Wikipedia, that are also carefully managed, but 
as open projects with diverse contributors.  This approach also works.

Let me put it more capitalistically.  If you're the creator of a piece 
of software and you want to take it open-source but retain control over 
it, you don't want your competitors to take advantage of the IP you've 
just magnanimously made public in order to take away your market share. 
  So a GPL-style licence works as a kind of patent, that allows others 
to benefit from your stuff while you retain control over your IP.  At 
the same time it's unlike a patent in that there are no restrictions on 
who can use your stuff, and your competitors pay you not in cash but in 
kind, by publishing improvements that can be fed back into the project.

The alternative, if you want to maintain control over your IP, is of 
course the traditional approach where you don't publish anything.  
Should I presume those who call the GPL 'communist' or 
'anti-competitive' because of its restrictions have a similar attitude 
to developers who don't publish their source code?

Tony M.