> Source for that? I thought I read a quote from him saying that GPL licensing the Linux kernel was the best decision he ever made.
If you ever hear his explanation of why he used the GPL (which boils down to "I give you code, you give me code back, we're even"[1]) skips over the software freedom aspect. Not to mention that he's one of the advocates of the open source movement which doesn't have any views on software freedom.
I can't give you an explicit quote where he said "I don't care about software freedom", but it becomes quite clear if you look at his actions (particularly toward the GPLv3, where he clearly differentiates his views from the FSF's views[1] -- and he carefully avoids using the term "freedom").
There is a quote where he claims that vendor lock-in isn't morally bad[2], which is the best I could find after 10 minutes of searching:
> The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it is ok to control peoples hardware.
But enforced monopolistic control - c'mon there is no freedom there.
Not to mention legally enforced monopolies destroy the market for everyone, including themselves.
Pretty much the 1st observation Adam Smith makes.
Without freedom and thus competition there is no progress, everything stagnates.
Music & film industry is a case in point, every change they lobby against turns out to be insanely profitable when they are forced into it. ( 78's, radio, videos, mp3 , streaming - all were going to 'kill' the industry till they didn't )
Fat cats won't change or innovate without competition.
Control abates all innovation.
Enforced control of your hardware is slavery.
Source for that? I thought I read a quote from him saying that GPL licensing the Linux kernel was the best decision he ever made.