Hi,
I am not sure I understand this storm in a tea cup. Sachin keeps striking down a strawman; defending the right of the creator of a work to license said work under whatever license floats their boat. There is no dispute there; international agreements on copyrights (look up the Bern agreement) have made it so.
So people can write code, and not distribute the result -- traditional software creators have done this for decades, so where's the beef?
Now, of course you can't take someone else's work, and decide derive things from it, and decide to license it whichever way you like -- if you did not do all the work, but used someone elses, you do not make all the decisions -- including whether, and how, to distribute their portion of the final product. So, if you are modifying free software, you can only distribute the derived work under the rights granted to you by the upstream license -- if they say you need to have full source out there, that's what you must do -- or not use any upstream code, and reinvent the wheel from scratch.
Secondly, if you do restrict the four freedom's for your users, as is your right for licensing _your_ work, you can't call it free software, and if you do not meet the definition of open source software you can't call it that either.
With these understood, what is all this heated debate all about?
manoj