[danbmil99]

I find this debate so very tedious. From a libertarian perspective, RMS's arguments are just utter bs. He's basically saying two independent parties have no right to enter into a contract that involves keeping secrets. That's what happens when you agree to a EULA. If you don't like the contract, don't accept it.

People have no more right to "free software" in the RMS absolutist sense than they have right to free beer, free lunch, or free anything. (And yes, I know the 'free as in speech' slogan, but my point is that I have a right to enter into a contract, or offer someone a contract that limits their rights to share certain information I want to protect.) The fact that the thing in question is information rather than something more 'real' doesn't change the morality of the situation one bit -- it's merely a practical consideration, that bits are easy to copy, and cars and lunch are not.

[Peaker]

The parties aren't independent.

People are utterly dependent on software.

Net effects mean that people aren't free to choose the software that has the agreements they agree with.

I think the question anyone should ask -- is what kind of society do we want to live in? One where everyone controls their computers and software, or one where the norm is to surrender control of this part of your life to third parties?

[danbmil99]

I think the open source movement (as opposed to the free software jihad of RMS) has worked exactly how the market should work. Some manufacturers are addicted to secrecy, DRM, draconian copy protection, and restrictive EULA's. The FOSS movement, responding to this reality, provides alternate versions of almost any type of software you care to use.

So why in the world would it be reasonable to force Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else to give you something they choose to withhold? Instead, speak with your pocketbook -- refuse to pay their tithe, and work with open software and/or with companies whose policies on this issue you accept and agree with.

TL; DR: Market forces are almost always more efficient and less prone to unintended consequences than top-down laws and regulations. Let the market work.

[Peaker]

Firstly, claiming RMS is a jihadist is a silly ad-hominem. RMS presents a coherent principled position, and fights for it.

Secondly, you might be forced to use Microsoft products, because your government, industry standard, or other is using proprietary Microsoft formats.

I think the question to ask is what the big-picture-effect of allowing/disallowing withholding source code from users would be. We should not use a narrow benchmark of "minimal government interference" or "maximum personal rights", but a "yields best overall outcome" benchmark.