The overwhelming thing I get from reading this article is that the author fundamentally misunderstands the point behind software freedom. While many people (even RMS) characterise it as a moral struggle, the situation is far more nuanced than "doing it that way is bad and doing it this way is good". It's much more that there are outcomes that are desirable and outcomes that are not. Some people believe that the undesirable outcomes are immoral, but I think it is disingenuous to characterise it simply as a moral issue without discussing the various set of outcomes.

When we buy some physical object, like a screw driver, nobody tells us what we can use the screw driver for. It doesn't come with a license agreement forbidding you from opening paint cans with it. It doesn't say, "This screw driver is licensed for your projects only. If you want to using it at your friends house, you'll have to buy another screw driver". It doesn't say, "You can't attach this screw driver to an electric drill, thereby fashioning an electric drill". It doesn't say, "You can't sell or even give away this screw driver to someone else. You can't sharpen the blade. You can't attach the handle more securely. You certainly can't show someone else how to sharpen the blade, or attach the handle more securely. You can't forge a copy of this screw driver and give it to your friend. And you especially can't forge a copy of this screw driver and sell it!".

In contrast, this is exactly the kind of thing we are told we must accept for software. Of course, it isn't just software. This TV has no user serviceable parts. We've jury-rigged this ink container so that it is a DMCA violation to refill it (that was a WTF moment in customer abuse if there ever was one). It's illegal to fix your tractor. You can't adjust the fuel/air ratios for your car (and especially you can't sell a device that does it for the average person!!!) The list goes on. We're just lucky that 35 years ago or so, somebody realised what was happening and thought critically about it with respect to software.

I totally understand that many companies want creative licenses that allow them to more easily control the market place. I understand that they wish to allow some of the 4 freedoms, but wish to curtail others. They feel that they can't make a viable business plan without these controls. They don't want to aid others in competing in their market. I'm not unsympathetic to that point of view. I'm still not going to purchase their software/service if I have any other choice. Especially as a programmer, I value the 4 freedoms. I exercise those freedoms. I'm willing to pay for those freedoms. Perhaps not very many people agree with that, but I'll tell you that there are a hell of a lot more these days than there were 35 odd years ago.

There is no need for the FSF to compromise. In fact, there is no reason that they should. The only point for the existence of the FSF is to promote the 4 freedoms. The outcomes for the consumer are much better off with those freedoms intact. If some companies what to make weird hybrid licenses, then they are allowed to do it. If it is marginally better than the really abusive crap that you sometimes get, then that's a plus. It's not a plus that the FSF exists to pursue, though. The "Free As Long As It Doesn't Impact Our Bottom Line Software Foundation" doesn't really roll off the tongue anyway. "We'll only stop you from making full use of the software if doing so impacts our ability to dominate the market. We promise" is just not something that needs protecting or promoting.

While parts of this post is tongue in cheek, I hope it makes the situation more clear. Businesses have genuine hardships when trying to create free software businesses. It would be great if the FSF did more work to try to find solutions to help those businesses within the confines of free software, they aren't going to be doing anything useful by compromising on the 4 freedoms. Free software is a movement on behave of the consumer. It would be like CAMRA abandoning real ale as long as it was profitable for the breweries -- it just doesn't make any sense.