# free VS free

Seems like my favourite [discussion](http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html) [is back](http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions). In the ring two guys: Zed
Shaw, the developer of lamson and mongrel, on the other side we have
Jacob Kaplan-Moss Django's BDFL.

This time the discussion seems to be entitled "Because the only thing
better than an arbitrarily restrictive license is an ambiguously
restrictive license" [[via twitter](http://twitter.com/jacobian/status/2598708129)]. I won't warm up the
discussion with new arguments (promised) but what I found most
interesting about the discussion is [Zed's blog post](http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html) why he's using the (A/L)GPL.
Basically what he's saying is that he does not want to be burned again
like he was with Mongrel and uses the GPL to force people to contribute.

I'm not exactly sure how that supports freedom. I might be idealistic
here, but what motivates me the most about the open source libraries I
work on is how they are used. I got mails from developers in many
companies that are using various [Pocoo](http://dev.pocoo.org/)
libraries internally and cannot contribute patches due to restrictions
in the company structure. Every once in a while I get patches those
developers craft in their free time and very often I don't get any.
However the point is, that I can see people using my stuff which
motivates.

I'm not making money with my libraries, but that's probably because I'm
not a friend of selling code. I love to give the stuff away I'm working
on, and get payed for support if one needs it. And so far this worked
flawlessly for me.

Forcing people to freedom is not exactly my definition of being free.

**So dear users: Use my stuff, have fun with it. And letting me know
that you're doing is the best reward I can think of. And if you can
contribute patches, that's even better.**