As someone who shares beliefs with FSF's ideals, reading this rant makes me think that maybe there's a chance to bring up another movement with the relative same ideals as Free Software but have a different type of leadership.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, just honestly curious why you think a 3rd alternative would bring change in any meaningful way. We have enough fragmentation as things stand.
In other words, if you subscribe to the four tenets of software freedom as they pertain to users, "free software" also provides as much freedom to the developers as is possible without compromising on the users' freedoms.
I don't understand where the either-or comes in.
Choosing to protect the freedom of users as a whole will dissatisfy developers who would like to have a different set of freedoms.
These are not compatible. There are either strings attached as in GPL or there are not, as in BSD.
Developers are users.
> There are either strings attached as in GPL or there are not, as in BSD.
From the way you're phrasing this, it's clear you miss the free software paradigm altogether. There are no strings attached. The ability for some users to limit other users' freedoms isn't one of the four freedoms.
As a developer I have a problem to solve. GPL code comes with strings attach that LIMIT my ability to use it since the code I am writing does not have GPL compatible licensing. Thus it limits me as a developer.
I don't miss the free software ideology - I just don't care about it. I care about the software I write and of what the users want, nothing more and nothing less.
So, you're saying that you want to choose a license for your code that infringes upon its users freedoms. That's not a problem with the GPL.
> I care about the software I write and of what the users want
Free software isn't about what users want. It's about what they deserve.
Rights are inalienable, so regardless of what users say or how they act, the rights are theirs, and neither you nor anybody else can infringe upon users' freedoms.
Nobody ever said that you had a right to infringe upon others' rights.
> leave GPL folks to play their hypocritical games with semantics, definitions and freedoms.
There's not one ounce of hypocrisy anywhere here. You may not like it, but to call "GPL folks" hypocritical is absolutely ridiculous.
Finally, it's remarkable that you managed to take a comment my comment, which was originally highlighting the similarities between the two schools of thought, and turning it into a jumping-off point for how one is clearly better than the other. Well-done!
Forward, not back. Sorry, but I think this is an important yet often missed distinction.
So it's basically a "stone soup" model, as it applies to developers. If you use my source code, you can use it for whatever you want, so long as my freedoms to get back your changes (which then I can use in whatever way I want, including in locked down devices) can go into the project.
As far as I am concerned, a locked-down device is a business model choice. It allows hardware to be sold for much less money, because it allows for alternate monetization strategies (i.e., the Tivo subscription services, video rentals, etc.) People who want to buy general purpose computers can always install the Open Source software on a machine of their choosing, and that's also fine. Whether you want to pay $199 or $699 and perhaps give up some freedoms as far as that particular device is concerned is also a choice which each user should be allowed to make on their own. After all, the freedom to choose is also a freedom.
Now, there are two counter-arguments to this perspective. Once is in a device with a mixed set of proprietary and free/open source software, it may not be possible to use the proprietary software on a general purpose computer. There the question is whether free software should be used as a bludgeon to force vendors of products which also use some proprietary code to give more freedoms to users (which may undermine certain business models as described above).
The second pontential argument is "what if there are no more general purpose computers". And there this is where the UEFI secure boot discussions become especially interesting. However, so long as it's possible to disable secure boot, or the hardware allows users to install signing keys of their own choosing, the threat of not being able to purchase general purpose computers where you can install software of your choice is not credible at least in the near term, and so long as we work hard to make sure it doesn't appear, I don't think will be a huge threat in the long term. You may not be able to get a general purpose computer with a quad-core CPU, 16 gigs of memory, etc., for $29.95 plus a two year subscription, but if you are willing to pay the full fair price, I'm fairly confident the threat of not being able to buy a general purpose computer is not a high probability outcome.
So the bottom line is we want developers to be able to be free to pursue business models that in turn allow users to be able to purchase devices that may not offer them the full set of freedomes --- but it's the user's choice that they get those locked-down devices. The FSF position is that they don't want their source code to ever be used in devices that might not allow users the full range of freedoms, even if it hurts the software project by turning away developers who have these business models that they disagree with.
I already have to go very far out of my way and pay a huge premium for getting an unlocked Android phone. As phones/tables supplant many "general-purpose" computer use cases, this threat is only increasing, if current trends continue.
How is that the case? I pay less for my Nexus devices than I'd pay for any locked-down phone (either up-front or given the increased cost of a subsidized-phone plan).
The point is that, once I've bought the hardware, nobody should be able to tell me my that I can't flash my own custom ROM on the phone.
The availability issues for the Nexus 4 have absolutely nothing to do with the Christmas rush.
> So don't buy locked down devices. There are unlocked device for sale,
You're missing the two points, which are:
1. Unlocking the device should be an option for all phones - it's a basic right of ownership.
2. It's getting harder and harder to find truly open devices (the Galaxy Nexus had issues on this front). If things keep heading in this direction, soon there won't be any unlocked devices for sale.
This is simply not true at all, from a legal standpoint.
You're confusing subsidy with ownership - the phone isn't rented; it's yours. You received a discount on the price at the moment of sale because you agreed to a separate (independent) contract which happens to guarantee them more money overall, but that doesn't change the fact that you own the device. If the contract gets broken due to breach of contract, you keep the phone, because it's your property - they don't take ownership of it again.
More importantly, this discussion is all completely irrelevant, because phone unlocking has nothing to do with a subsidy - almost all phones are locked, subsidy or no subsidy.
I'm always surprised by the number of developers who enjoy the freedoms they are granted without thinking twice about taking the same freedoms away from their users.
Not really.
Open source can be described as a marketing campaign to convince people who don't care about free software to produce/accept it. The catch is that the people who are most attracted to that marketing campaign are attracted precisely because they do not care about free software ideals. Even worse, when you're motivated by something fundamentally different than the GNU manifesto, your actions will not always fit that manifesto.
An example of the difference is the use of permissive licenses. Someone who is into open source will often like permissive licenses because they let them reuse open source code in proprietary code. A free software supporter, by contrast, will avoid permissive licenses for the same reason.
On the other hand, Free Software can be described as an attempt by certain fanatics to hijack the idea of open source code sharing, in order to advance their own ideals.
That being said, I am certainly aware of the many, many practical difficulties with the GPL, but that doesn't stop it being one of the best (IMO, of course) events in software in the last thirty years.
On the other hand your characterization strikes at the heart of the BSD vs GPL argument as it is viewed by BSD proponents.
There's a documentary on YouTube that does a reasonably good job of telling the story of how and why this happened, including the conflicts between the various factions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjaC8Pq9-V0
just fork, code and... maybe make profit. [2]
[2] http://www.techotopia.com/index.php/A_Brief_History_of_Red_H...