It&#x27;s more reasonable that your stance here.  You can quibble about how to define freedom, but given that RMS includes freedom from future vendor lock-in, it&#x27;s entirely reasonable for him to say that other developers don&#x27;t talk about freedom (as he means it) - because they don&#x27;t. It&#x27;s not hypothetical - BSD-derived code has been used in closed-source operating systems (both windows and notably macos) and lots of other software.<p>By using BSD over GPL you&#x27;re choosing to make it easy for many people to use your code, even if that use eventually may support closed-source lock-in.  Since most developers dabble in open source mostly as a prestige project, that&#x27;s a reasonable choice - you&#x27;re not doing it to prevent software monopolies or lock in, are you?  So no, you don&#x27;t care about freedom, exactly as RMS says.  Most people are probably doing it for recognition by their peers and because they&#x27;re interested in solving the problem at hand, and compromising on those two points for a slim chance that you might contribute to a more pervasively free software future sounds like a risky bet.<p>None of the two minor projects I wrote and support use (L)GPL.