small scale) always draws a lot of media attention and tends to be portrayed to an exaggerated degree. In addition, the US is an obese nation with enormous food production capabilities; consequently true widespread starvation will require some effort. In nature, parasites tend to evolve in a symbiotic relationship with the host. This debate over the relative "freedom" quality of using either the GPL or BSD(/MIT/Apache) isn't new in the slightest, but it really appears to me that there's always been a ships-passing-in-the-night feel to it. Given the assortment of individuals advocating each position, it's clear that the disagreement isn't a result of either boneheadedness or stubbornness, yet the argument doesn't ever seem to "mesh"; in fact, it seems much like the debate over abortion, where although the political and media rhetoric focuses on "women's rights", the actual underlying disagreement is over when a {zygote,embryo,fetus,baby} is endowed with humanity (basically, the modern version of ensoulment). It seems that the disagreement over which licensing scheme is more "free" may be reducible to a question over whose freedom we're discussing. Obviously, the original author is free to license her code however she wants, and that fact is typically a first- or second-round throwaway line. However, the BSD camp appears be considering freedom from the perspective of other developers , emphasizing the freedom to incorporate BSD-licensed code into another system, without imposing conditions on that other system. Effectively, BSD accepts some level of defection from the community by developers (e.g., Apple) in exchange