I think it's just a tiny bit more than simple semantics, but you're absolutely right. 



[Carol]: FSF approach is just plain stupid (IMHO).
Quote[Carol]: FSF approach is just plain stupid (IMHO).
Most non-free software in the world today is not sold, but licensed. From complex operating systems to tiny games or screensavers, end users of the software have a license to use it under conditions laid out in an End User License Agreement (EULA). This agreement lists out the conditions under which the user can use the software -- often restrictions are imposed on the use to which the software can be put. In almost all cases, users are explicitly prohibited from "taking the software apart" to study how it works, cannot modify or improve it, are only allowed to make a single copy of the software (for backup purposes) and are strictly prohibited from distributing copies to other people. (Much of the open source model is one of distribution.)
I openly credit Vista's original EULA for pushing me toward Linux. Thanks again, Microsoft; it was the best thing you've ever done for me! But then recently, the highly popular open source Mozilla Firefox browser was severely criticized for creating a pop-up dialog of Firefox's EULA, a piece of software which needed no "branding" EULA. Mozilla Foundation’s Mitchell Baker quickly responded to it as a mistake.
__________________
Most of us are never going to open the hood and retool the source code. But there's intrinsic value in using free/libre software, since most of the world cannot afford to send money to Redmond for its proprietary products, much less trust a corporation to do the right thing by us. Not Microsoft. Not Google. Not IBM. Not Apple. Not Goldman Sachs....
Besides, all data composed by governments (and many key industries) should be open source that follows open standards. Stephen Fry explains it well: http://www.gnu.org/fry/
I don't think GNU should be an implicit license in any definition - many software writers hate GNU and they shouldn't be penalised for refusing to use it. Their software can still be considered free if it is open source and not charged for but with a 3 line license: "Give it to whoever you like but complete and in tact", "Use and abuse it however you like", "Provided as is, no guarantees - use at your own risk".
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws,"


Original address: https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=15201.0