[jenadine]

But only got accepted by the FSF from 2007. Until that point, (and I think even after that), RMS and the FSF was only concerned about the code that you run on your machine be open source (eg, the JavaScript in your browser) but the code running in some server didn't need to be open source as that did not violated the user freedom.

[davisr]

RMS and the FSF fight for free software, not open source software. There is an important semantic difference that your comment doesn't appreciate.

See: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.

[alexvoda]

You showcase the pedanticness that made the FSF ineffective in the last decade+. Instead of focusing on the topic about how integrating the AGPL into GNU was very slow, you sidetracked into free vs open, a topic that has been debated ad-nauseum.