Let me clarify:
I fully support free software when it is used as a tool. I believe that
operating systems, language compilers, editors, and web browsers should
always be open and free. I can buy any tool whether it is a power saw or
coffee maker and take apart and learn how it works. I can also learn how it
works for free and if I choose to improve it, I can release my own version of
said power saw or coffee maker. The point is we use the tools to create
things and we shouldn't be restricted by that.
My issue is with saying things like a video game, which is software, should
have all of its source code available. It is a source of entertainment and I
didn't put in the money and hours to pay the rent, taxes, artists, and
programmers to make it happen. I also spent no money to market it. I
shouldn't feel entitled to have their complete source code even if the tools
they used were free and I can make one on my own if I wanted.
Confusion between what is a service or not When I offer a service to a
customer, they pay me for monthly access and I give it to them. It is
software as a service and one of the things the FSF says is ok to make money
off of software is when it is a service. On the other hand, if it is an
actual program and I give them monthly access with a key, then it is bad. The
only difference here is one is a physical program on a computer and the other
is on a web server. Aren't they pretty much the same thing?
I understand there are gray areas in everything and Stallman takes it to an
extreme. Just think for a second... what would Stallman be doing now if he
didn't have a non-profit and could be paid to advocate? Probably working some
manual labor job or be forced to write proprietary software to feed himself.
