I now have to agree with other members of this forum: you are a troll.
You keep on making plain wrong statements and when we show you that they are
wrong (with references), you make some more.
Red Hat is *not* an exception: the support market for free software is the
most thriving market today. You can find many economical studies quantifying
that. Most of the companies in this market are small and local, which is good
in my opinion. Nevertheless, they are also mega-corporations that make much
money with free software too: take a look at the contributors of the Linux
kernel; try to find support for an Apache server with a MySQL database; do
you code in Java/Python/Ruby/etc.?; etc.
The GPL license does not force anyone to redistribute anything (modified or
not). The authors of the software have not been forced to use this license
either. If you value their rights, why do you complain that you cannot take
their work and make it evil (i.e., proprietary)?
The freedom definition used by the FSF is that of the dictionary:
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under
physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
In the domain we are interested in, that means the user is in control.
Your argumentation does not make any sense. You do not seem to see any
ethical problem with developing free software but the GPL is not free enough.
Seriously, can you explain in what way a proprietary license grants more
freedom than the GPL?
