[weberc2]

Deliberately harming your users to own the corps. Jokes aside, open source is great, but RMS’s perspective is extreme. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the overall quantity and quality of open source software is much greater because of closed source software because companies fund open source initiatives with profits from closed source initiatives and then the second order effects of maintaining a huge pool of professional programmers, some of whom use their skills to contribute to OSS.

[wkz]

I think you have to put his principles in a historical perspective. Sure it sounds somewhat extreme today when OSS dominates many layers of our business stacks. But assuming that the industry would have naturally seen the OSS light is far from a given IMHO. I think copyleft licenses where a very important springboard to start the virtuous OSS cycle.

[mhermher]

No one should make money selling software. Beg for donations or sell ads if you need to pay your bills. Or get a cushy university appointment like me, and spend your days polemicizing about freedom.

[weberc2]

That's your moral view, but you missed my point which is that it's incompatible with a florishing ecosystem of open source software.

[zozbot123]

Open source software existed before closed-source software was even a thing. Software used to come in source-code and freely-redistributable form; it was basically funded as a loss leader for things like hardware and support, that could be billed for. Many companies today which fund FLOSS have very similar models, only with other sorts of value-added services being added to the toolset. Others have even managed to pay for FLOSS directly via crowd-funding.

[weberc2]

To be clear, "OSS predates CSS" is not a refutation for "CSS makes the OSS ecosystem larger and more robust". Apologies if that's not the point you were trying to make.