:- "There is an argument that says if you can just copy something then we don't really move on much" Is there? Not me chum, I am never satisfied with what is already there even if I can just copy it. I have my own ideas, but there just isn't time in this life to implement them all. Nor is it very evident around me - like the fact that you can copy Shakespeare does not seem to stop new authors coming along all the time. And :- "Open source can result in an elimination of competition" That's a new one! Usually the complaint about Open Source is that there are too MANY versions (Fedora vs Suse, KDE vs Gnome, Libre Office vs KOffice, emacs vs vi ... need I go on?). In fact it is maybe the MAIN complaint about Open Source that htere are too many alternatives clamouring for attention. If you want to see how competition is killed, take a look at Microsoft's history. Here is somewhere to start :- garbage Divide and conquer &gt; the ability to freely modify whatever software is running on his computer and share it This ideal is great for the tiny minority of highly able individuals who have both the skills, motivation and the time to do this. So far as making Linux (or other GPL projects) popular, accepted and used by ordinary people, it's completely irrelevant. A theoretical nirvana that (even more than free speech) is promoted by its ignorant