[legulere]

Or to paraphrase it: All other goals have to bow before the goal of everything being free software as defined by Richard Stallman.

I also think that open source is nice, but by far it's not the most important thing there is to software.

[PeterisP]

Exactly, to claim that you support FSF, you should support the goal of FSF which is that the four freedoms of software are more important than having more/better/different software without some of those freedoms.

As RMS says, "I also think that open source is nice, but by far it's not the most important thing there is to software." is a valid viewpoint but it's against the goals of FSF (not mild support, but opposition), so RMS would kindly ask you to cease claiming any endorsement by FSF in this case.

[cpkpad]

Or to paraphrase you: "I don't know how to read. Ouch. Big words hurt my brain. I know! It's too complex for me, so I'll mock it."

[legulere]

"Even worse, that grants nonfree software legitimacy." ⇒ "nonfree" software has no legitimacy, no matter what.

This totally ignores that there might not be free software for that use case, the free software alternative might be worse (very often the case). This article totally ignores those concerns and thus depreciates them as less important.

What you're doing is calling me an idiot, you could have at least tried to come up with a counter-argument.

[PeterisP]

The article doesn't ignore those concerns, but it makes an explicit statement that yes, in their opinion "nonfree" software has no legitimacy, no matter what and even then using, creating and improving free software should be done instead of using the better non-free alternative.

What counter argument do you want? FSF explicitly states their position, which seems incompatible with your position, so they acknowledge that your position is what they want to fight against, you are their "political enemy" and ask you to not call yourself their ally/supporter or claim FSF endorsement, as some of the targeted companies do.

It's a statement of values and goals, which are obviously different for different people and organizations.

[legulere]

> What counter argument do you want?

I expect no counter argument or faulty ones if I'm right in my view, and good ones that change my view if I'm wrong. I don't expect to be attacked just by insults without any explanation why I'm supposed to be wrong.

I just pointed out with my original comment that the FSF doesn't tolerate other definitions of liberties and doesn't care if it tramples on them on their way to "replace and eliminate"(from this article) everything that doesn't follow their definitions. It also puts its own cause above everything else.

This seems pretty extremist and totalitarian to me