> Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other.
This actually confuses 'libre' with 'gratis'.
This actually confuses 'libre' with 'gratis'.
I love the open-source/libre philosophy but it's not viable for a business. I think the more pressing question is whether software even should be a business. Many think that there's a certain rift between users and developers that still exists today, and I have to agree.
1. Users push for increased ease-of-use 2. Developers implement more simple systems 3. Power users complain about the loss of features 4. Developers add back in missing features 5. All users complain about software being a convoluted mess
The programmer is now left at a disadvantage: he can either continue working with a codebase that's disorganized and inelegant, or he can start over from scratch. In a business environment, starting over from scratch would not be an economically viable situation, while continuing with the older codebase would be the wiser choice (even thought it may piss off users). Users are left disadvantaged; they can continue to use the older software versions but run the risk of poor security and an inferior interface.
With free/libre software this problem disappears, as a talented programmer with the user's interest can simply fork the older version and continue to implement a better interface and security updates while retaining a cleaner codebase. However, the endless stream of forks fragment software and hinder unified progress. Also, the original developer is more likely to abandon the software application due to lack of funds and interest.
It's a lose-lose situation. There is no one perfect development methodology. The open-source philosophy is more effective in the long run, but proprietary software is the only viable method to sustain a business. Open-source advocates will often point to Red Hat as a counter-example, but it's important to note Red Hat is the exception to the rule. It's also even more important to note that Red Hat isn't doing so hot these days, either.
Where the FSF falls down is in its inability to compromise. A number of companies have achieved success with a mixed closed/premium source model, such as JetBrains. While this again allows much more freedom than a standard proprietary setup, the FSF will always refuse to acknowledge any software with ANY proprietary bits in it.
They're now incredibly out of touch with Silicon Valley, and it isn't difficult to see why. They continue their militant and expressive attitude instead of expressing gratitude to those that push OSS forward.
Apart from GNU, the GPL and its many variants, the FSF is largely irrelevant.
It never had to be that way.
They're an ideological foundation. There are already plenty of others who compromise in the name of pragmatism, and there's nothing wrong with that.
FSF represents a viewpoint that is constantly under threat from some of the world's richest corporations such as Apple. If they became the "Free And Also Not-So-Free (As Long As It's Useful) Software Foundation", they can just as well close shop.
They're now incredibly out of touch with Silicon Valley
Certainly this is a positive thing in the long run? There's much more to technology than just the Valley players' interests.
Most servers are powered by software under Apache and MIT licenses; companies pick what they want and mostly don't give back. The dominant operating system on personal devices is Android, which is free but nevertheless deeply tied with a corporation's interests and developed in secrecy using the same principles as proprietary software.
What would FSF gain by supporting that kind of software freedom, other than a reputation as nice guys? That model of freedom has already won, and from FSF's point of view, it's not much better than traditional closed software.
If the FSF compromises in order to be diplomatic, they'll have to compromise on the only thing they are adamant about: that software must be libre (and there's no such thing as "mostly libre" software). This would invalidate the FSF's mission, which is ideological and their only raison d'etre.
Open source software would probably not disappear, since it's largely successful (and extremely convenient even for companies who don't give anything back), but maybe libre software would. The FSF's concern is libre software, not open source software. I'd like libre software (as well as user rights and our freedom to tinker) to continue to exist and therefore I support the FSF's mission and their principled stance. I'm not as uncompromising as they are, but then again, my job is not advocacy.
I hate to sound paranoid, but I think libre software, user rights and the open internet are under attack, and we need to organize and defend those rights. This is an ideological issue orthogonal to any technical merit of open or closed source software. I'm glad the FSF exists as one of the groups on the side of users.