@vermaden >when You redistribute - You are ALWAYS FORCED to share the changes.
No GNU license forces you to redistribute - you are free to not share it at all.

It is better for a program not to exist than to be proprietary.

You only need to respect the freedom of those who you distribute the software to - you can refuse to distribute the software to anyone but your customers, but still, you cannot restrict the freedom of your customers.

The GPLv3 only gives permissions - the government is the one saying you're not allowed to make it proprietary, since copyright.

>BSD gives MORE freedom then GPL.
There is not just one "BSD license", there is the BSD 4-clause, BSD 3-clause, BSD 2-clause, BSD 1-clause and BSD 0-clause,

The amount of software under weak licenses has caused an incredible *loss* of freedom, as pretty much all proprietary software used to attack humanity re-uses software under weak licenses.

You're confusing freedom with restrictions - freedom is something than increases the amount of freedom in the world, while restrictions are something that reduces it.

"But my freedom to put people in chains" you say - but it should be obvious that enslaving people by putting people in chains is a restrictive act the removes freedom that should not be permitted.

While it isn't immoral to simply construct a tool like a chain, as chains have many good usages, it would be immoral to construct chains if you know that the primary usage will be to enslave people - in the same lieu, while it isn't immoral to merely write and publish free software under a weak license (even though you could do better by licensing under the GPLv3-or-later or AGPLv3-or-later), it is immoral to write and publish software you know will have the primary usage of restricting computer users freedom.