How did the ideology of libre/free software get so politicized?
I’ve noticed advocates for exclusively for libre software and actively discourage simple open source software for not going far enough, also want censorship of not allowing any proprietary software to be mentioned, and don’t allow any critiques of the software they use because it’s libre software so there are no faults or bad designs.
I thoroughly enjoy the code purity of what is labelled as libre software, for license I only like the ISC license for freedom. My attitude is if someone changes my code and doesn’t give back, it does not harm me or injury me in any way.
I also believe libre software can be used for the surveillance of other people, libre software does not be default mean privacy. How network software is configured in systems that other people don’t control, it doesn’t matter if it’s open source when people have no knowledge of other networks configuration.
On the principal of freedom, I do support the right to develop proprietary software. The fact that it exists does not harm anyone who chooses not to use proprietary software.
It seems the die hard libre software crowd, not open source people but the ones who want to live in an only GPLv3+ world can start to live in ther own world, their own bubble, and become disconnected losing perspective that which software other people use is not something that should affect your day in any way. Unless someone is both a network engineer and does infosec or something similiar, they’re not in a position to understand fully appreciate how network protocols matter more than a license and code availability.
To me, it sort of falls into a paradox of tolerance scenario. First they moved Centos upstream, but I did not protest because I did not use CentOS. Then they locked the RHEL repos so that downstream was no longer an option and I did not protest, because I could afford the yearly support contract etc. etc. until Red Hat is just another version of Windows Server with all of the terror that implies.
Free as in beer is lovely and can sometimes even exist without the exploitation of user data but historically and especially lately, we have seen what happens when business interests don’t align with open-source philosophy: users get shafted.
And while I and many others can’t fork source code that is libre, we know that it can and will be done if something goes amiss or awry at a corporate level. Having GPLv3 code sort of gives the community a dead-man’s switch to pull in case a corporate or other interest goes against the needs and wishes of the community. We can fork off, as it were without losing what the community has built.
If it’s only licenses stopping companies, why has there never been a single company attempting to turn one of the BSD’s closed source when the license allows a company to take any one of the BSD’s source code and make it proprietary?
Why is it only GPLv3 people and FSF people who rant like lunatics about protecting freedoms from companies, but a security operating system like OpenBSD has never been less than a libre operating system and without company or corporate people trying to repackage it when they have legal free will to do so?
I’ve only seen companies donate cash and code to BSD developers, and have never developed any proprietary technologies to run on BSD. I say it’s a cultural and political difference that Linux-libre people do not have the capacity to grasp or comprehend.
Well, MacOS and to a lesser extent iOS are bsd’s that have been made copied and made private. And i dont think that anyone will argue that Apple are contributing upstream to BSD in any way.
There are several for-profit companies using BSD as the base for their products like pfSense and TrueNas and they are happily committing upstream to the distros even though they don’t have to because they understand the value of open source and accessibility.
I personally think that the reason Linux is as successful and as widespread as it is is because of the compulsion of everyone to share their changes. It benefits everyone when a new feature or security patch comes out and doesn’t allow any one person to take their ball and go home.
By your own phrasing it shows that you view everything from a Linux mentality and have zero experience maintain one of the BSD’s or care to try to understand BSD culture, using Linux terminology when talking about BSD.