I truly would like to know whether people making this point are just knowingly trolling - bringing up something they know is not actually true to avoid conceding that "permissive" license just doesn't protect those freedoms the GPL does or they truly believe in that kind of logically absurd proposition. If you're struggling with the realization of just how absurd that is, imagine that someone would propose additional amendment to the US constitution which would go something like this:
Last amendment) Oh and by the way you can disregard all the aforementioned amendments if you choose to do that
And then they would argue that such a constitution is obviously more free that the original as it allows you to do anything and abolishes all the nasty restrictions that were there previously. It would be a "permissive" constitution.
Everybody would look at anybody who would propose that as a loon and rightly so ... and that's also how I see the above mentioned "5th freedom" as you called it, it nullifies all the freedoms you had previously - from the standpoint of protecting software freedom it is just as absurd as the above amendment for the constitution.
The only way out of this is to just admit that you really do not care about those freedoms being preserved as you or the people advocating for "permissive" licenses demonstrably (according to the rules of logic) don't, otherwise you would use GPL that protects them - but saying that you do not care about preserving those freedoms doesn't look good so you probably won't do that and keep pretending (or fooling yourself) that you do care about those freedoms and continue to present an ability to take away freedom as a "freedom" in itself (and I'm sure the totalitarian regimes around the world would agree to that proposition)
You see this is a nice demonstration of why what I said above seems as a proper description of the situation. LightBit added another freedom as a "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others, under different conditions (freedom 4)."Originally Posted by Hirager
Relicensing LLVM/Clang under GPLv3 is exactly that and people should be happy that it gets exercised (why would they include it otherwise), yet you refer to it as "ripping it off" and we all know that is without doubt as many in the "permissive" camp would actually feel like. But why? Because the whole so called "permissive" charade is about making things "corporate friendly" - which means eliminating the 4 freedoms so they can monopolize their contribution and take away control from the users - it has nothing to do with software freedom. If you relicense to protect those freedoms they're not going to like you very much - funny that, isn't it
Why do you think LLVM is sponsored by Apple, I mean APPLE for god sakes! Could it be more transparent? The "permissive" licensing is the corporation's attempt at "damage control", they see that they can not compete with open-source in the long term so at least they try to make it so they can rip it off (and this is true rip off because they get to close it down) and eliminate the freedoms that made it so successful.
Does anybody really need more sensible reason why to prefer GPLv3 or copyleft in general?