The word freedom, as defined on Dictionary.com, has a number of meanings. I'm however very interested in the following ones:

2. The power to determine action without restraint.
7. The absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

Unfortunately, these definitions do not really fit the concept of what some people call Free(dom) Software. A case in point in the GNU General Public License or GPL in short. This license is supposed to be the poster-[boy/girl/child/penguin...] of free software aiming to enable free all software - not in terms of cost, but in terms of enabling others to use and develop on it. However, when a license that contains 10 pages of restrictions, it is appalling that it be termed to do anything with freedom.

In fact, the GPL has been rightly called a "viral" license since it can "infect" anything that comes into contact with GPL'd code. And by anything I mean both code and humans! Yes, you can read that right - it can infect humans too.

If you as developer study some GPL code and some years later simply use the same code logic out of memory, you are violating the GPL! Which means even using GPL software to educate children in schools can possibly make them completely unusable in anything but GPL software development because any code they now write is suspect.

So consider a company trying to hire developers for writing some IP related software. They have no wish to make this open source and that is their "freedom" to take that decision. Now imagine if one of the developers they hired studied under an education system that taught only GPL based software. (I'm not even debating the merits of such software currently - that being a topic for another discussion.) This developer - in all honesty - uses ideas that he learnt and applies that to the work assigned to him. The product gets made and distributed. And suddenly the GPL comes into effect on this software since it would not be deemed as "derivative work". So the company that has spent tons of time, money and effort to build this software gets into legal hassles regarding a license that they never wished to use - all because the GPL infected one developer in their team!

Recently, a disturbing news came to light. My own home state, Kerala, has decided to go with these pseudo-free software for education in schools. I'm extremely concerned about this. This basically means that kids coming out of Kerala schools have the following problems in terms of computer knowledge:

1. They are completely unprepared to be able to work with software that runs in more than 90% of the world's computers. That is, if they are not taught Windows, Office, .NET from Microsoft or any of the other major "proprietary" software, they are going to lose the freedom to work in the most exciting and fast growing areas - since this is what runs on the vast majority in the real world.
2. All of them are "infected" by GPL or GPL-like licenses. Companies would be very wary of hiring them for a software programmer role since there is no way of knowing if they might churn out GPL'd code - thus infecting the work they are doing as well. They will again lose the freedom to work in a company of their choice.

Think about this: If you have a kid going to school in Kerala and he is quite brilliant with computers - what would both you and he/she want? To learn good programming skills, using great tools to build enterprise applications or to tinker around in code that basically infects the kid so that later on in life he/she has no chance of working in a good software company as they will all be wary for the above reason? In both cases, a supposedly freedom granting license is what takes away the freedom in the long run. If you're a software developer, software company or even just a parent from Kerala reading this, please, please understand the implications of this decision by the government and if you think that you do not agree with them, make sure you let it be known.

One of the other very dangerous things that is associated with Free Software is that it is free (as in no cost). Currently, yes most of them are - but I consider it more as a temptation to get people hooked onto it (like a cocaine dealer will give out the first couple of shots free) till they get infected by the GPL. So please, if you are in for the cheapy part  - note that you will finally be losing freedom - not gaining it.

Finally, to clarify, I'm not against open source. That is, if someone chooses to make the source code available for anything then it should be completely open. All the software that I distribute with source are completely open - that is there is not a single restriction in reading, learning, using, modifying or distributing the code. A case in point in the recent System Uptime Monitor gadget for Windows Vista that I uploaded on the Live Gallery. Another user has also picked up this and used it to create another uptime monitor - but with a better look and feel. Now I am not forcing him to release his code, credit my work or anything since the code that was given was free from my side - both in terms of cost and freedom to do as he pleases. But "Open Source" as it is now known has a number of dangerous elements like the ones mentioned in this post. So do take care in any decision you are taking or are being forced to accept.

Update: After reading my post, a well known FOSS evangelist (and a good friend incidentally) got into a long discussion on IM. Although there were many points, arguments and counter-arguments we had, I'm only allowed to quote on part of the entire conversation. (I asked for permission and got it for only this one part.)

...
9/1/2006 12:43:29 PM Vinod Unny:
                                 the gpl is viral
...
9/1/2006 12:44:00 PM <Name Withheld>:
                                 it is viral within its scope (you use gpl'd code in your app, your ass is ours), but thats it.
...

I think this just goes ahead and proves what I was saying.