No, I get the free == freedom part. And it is still nonsensical at many levels.
I developed hardware for many years. A lot of this hardware was based on FPGAs. FPGAs, while hardware, are made into a functional solution through code. You write your hardware description in Verilog of VHDL and you get a working product in return. Some of this code took years to develop, evolve and optimize. It was very, very costly. And, there was no imaginable way that it made sense to release it as free (freedom) code. Doing that meant going out of business or seriously damaging a revenue stream that funded the development in the first place.
The same applies to my hospital example. Not free to own and not free to modify. In fact, it is both expensive and very much closed. And there is nothing wrong with that.
My basic premise remains true regardless of which flavor of "free" you choose to focus on: None of this would be possible without the financials to support and promote the release of gratis/freedom software. Impossible.
You mentioned MS as the greatest contributor to the Linux kernel last year. That cost MS millions to support. Those millions had to come from non-gratis/non-freedom software that MS charges for and keeps as closed source in order to earn money and employ their people. That's their model and there's nothing wrong with it.
RMS --or anyone else-- rejecting non-freedom software offerings in isolation of the realities that connect the two is nonsense. You would not have one without the other. It's a symbiotic relationship.
To further use your example: Support Microsoft non-gratis/non-freedom software offerings if you want to support the worlds largest contributor to the Linux kernel last year. I don't know, it could be a nice gesture by RMS and other proponents of his philosophies to support, rather than reject, MS in order to voice approval for their --per your assertion-- unmatched support of Linux (and probably other gratis/freedom software).
The healthier approach, in my opinion, is to recognize that both models have their place and that both have their evolutionary reasons to be perfectly valid and exist. I do and I try to support both.
The problem with the word "free" in English is that it has two meanings. In other languages there are distinct words for these two meanings. In Spanish they are "gratis" and "libre". So, gratis/libre software cannot exist outside the realities of the exact opposite type of software, non-free in every sense of the word. And that's OK.
My problem is with extremists who insist in not recognizing this and see the world through one and only one lens.
I use gratis/libre software. However, more often than not, I will look for paid software for a lot of applications where I need to ensure that proper support exists and, sometimes more importantly, that the software continues to be developed and evolves. All too often gratis/libre software falls short as developers loose interest in a field, leave school and need to earn a living or completely falls through the cracks and remains stagnant for years. Stories about this kind of thing abound.
In my own case, I have many examples of using gratis/libre software and then actively seeking paid alternatives in order to have a better solution with a single point of support.
The other issue with the freedom to modify part of the argument is that this is only good for us geeks. The average folk out there derives no direct value whatsoever from this. And, in a lot of cases, neither do we even though a lot of us could.
Here's the non-computing example for this: Do you fix your own car? Perhaps you do. I don't. Any more. When I was 19 I spent most of my weekends under the car or in the engine compartment. I can take an engine or transmission apart and rebuild it like the best mechanics. Yet, I have not done this for years. Why? That's just not what I do any more. I have other interests. And, more importantly, I need to focus my time, money and efforts elsewhere.
When faced with gratis/libre software that comes with source and a license to hack, frankly, in most cases, I have zero interest in doing so. I've done some, but that's not what I am in front of the computer to do every day. No, I need to get my work done and my job isn't defined as fixing problems with OpenOffice or some other piece of software. OpenOffice, as an example, has never worked for me or any business where I tried my best to introduce it. It is unreasonable to expect any business to continue to use a solution that does not work. So, in all cases, we moved on, paid for MS Office and got back to real work.
So, geeks want the ability to hack but I'd bet you that most just want to get on with building their products rather than fixing a problem with PHP or whatever. Sure, some do hack, a lot of them do hack, but that does not justify a position AGAINST closed source software.
I think that, in the end, we probably agree on a lot. I just don't like extremes in anything, from politics to religion and, yes, software. In most cases one population needs the other. It's OK to want to support gratis/libre software. I am just contending that this should not happen at the exclusion and vilification of paid/closed software because one would not exist without the other. Your MS example is the best proof I need: Support non-free software and you get huge benefits in the free software community. And that's OK. RMS and other should actively promote and support this.
To use your car analogy. The analogy would be correct if the only way to legally service your car would be to use the dealership's mechanic. Any attempt by you to rebuild your engine or use after-market parts would be illegal. Forget about improving your car in any way. That's illegal too. No new car stereo for you unless you upgrade to a whole new car.
Most people are fine with this because they know nothing about cars, and only care if they work. You hear them saying "as long as I get to drive it, I don't care. I have better things to do than service my own car."
But the restrictions go deeper. You aren't allowed to operate the cars the way you want. It's a huge revenue stream for the car companies to place restrictions on how you use your car. Want to drive somewhere new? Apply to the company and wait for them to hear back. You're not a big customer so you speak to someone in India and the wait is 6 months. Most applications are bungled and you have to resubmit it repeatedly. Still people don't complain saying "most of the places I need to drive are allowed by the car company. Only very strange and extremist people want to drive to some place new."
Now suppose you want to lend your car to a friend. You can't, unless they pay a hefty sum to the car company for an "additional driver license." The standard license allows two adults as drivers and up to two passengers, but if you want to carry more passengers, there's a fee for that too. Some people grumble, but they've been taught since an early age that sharing your car or giving unauthorized people rides is immoral.
Lots of people don't obey these laws, and there is a huge media campaign to call them "car Pirates" and an illegal movement called "hackers" who want to fix their own cars when they break, and add new features or drive to new places. They are often sued and the media goes nuts deriding them, calling them wackos and extremists.
When the car company goes bust and most of them do, you can continue to use the car for as long as it will run, but when anything breaks, you need to scrap the car and buy a new one with a different but equally incompetent company.
This is the situation of proprietary software extended to cars.
The analogy was not intended to be strict. That is impossible.
What you want, really, might be akin to the car company releasing the full design files of the car to you when you buy the car. What's the difference between source code for software and source code (the design) for making a car or a refrigerator these days. I fire-up Solidworks and can design a car. I fire-up various compilers and write the embedded code that runs the engine control systems, etc.
To create Linux, PHP or any piece of software you have teams of programmers in front of computers typing away. The case is the same for designing a car or a microwave oven.
Are you suggesting that Samsung should grant you the ability to download all the design files for that $69 microwave you bought at Walmart? Probably not. Why not? It's the same thing. I have spent years designing products that combine hardware and software. I've done it all in front of a computer. Exactly as I do when I code a website or an iPhone app. No difference. So, then, why treat them any different? Why aren't the proponents of free/freedom also not buying cars or supporting microwave oven makers than don't release their design files.
Ridiculous you say? So be it. It may very well be that it is not I who isn't getting it. My world is complete and equitable because I understand, like, support and promote that BOTH points of view are part of a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have free/freedom without paid/closed. Period.
I noticed that you neglected to mention my observations about you bringing up that MS was the largest contributor to the Linux kernel last year. You, with that, made my point with absolute precision: The largest contributor to Linux last year could afford to do so because they earn a revenue stream from another paid activity. And, in this case, it happens to be paid/closed software.
Again, I propose that the extremist view that ALL software ought to be free or free+freedom is simply not realistic and actually counterproductive.
What do you think would happen if someone like RMS came out and said something like: "I've decided to start supporting MS products because they enable MS to make significant and valuable contributions to the FOSS software community"
I'd bet you a good cup of coffee that you'd see a huge boost in the amount of FOSS work coming out of MS and others.
If you look at what RMS represents you can't help but cringe. He's actually proud of working with a piece of crap computer that is probably a decade behind the times. In his world the millions of people that have gained and continue to enjoy employment due to the evolution and improvements of paid/closed platforms and software would not have jobs. It's a joke.
I come from the vantage point of having designed and built my own computers down to the chip level. Having literally wire-wrapped my own boards. Designed my own disk controller cards and written my own OS and applications. So, I'll say that I have some skin in the game. And, yes, I know that a 1GHz machine with very lean software can do quite a bit. I was running AutoCAD on a CP/M system with 64K of RAM and a two-card math co-processor and RAM disk with 640K of memory. And I did a lot of good work with that. But, you know, today, I gladly pay thousands of dollars a year for licenses to programs such as SolidWorks and Altium Designer to get my work done. They are amazing and do a great job. They represent a tremendous amount of R&D and expertise in the field. And, no, I don't care to have the source code and don't really give a shit if they don't want to release it. It's their product and they should be entitled to do with it as they please. My annual license fees get me continued and consistent improvement and support.
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree, but it's clear you just aren't understanding the word "freedom." So you think you disagree, while I understand what you are saying and can see clearly you just don't understand. I don't think I can disagree with you under these circumstances.
To get you to think more carefully, as a computer engineer can you tell me the difference between a computer and a microwave oven or a car as finite state machines? Which regular languages does a computer accept that a car does not?
Also, can you tell me the the difference between software and the licensing of the software?
I think getting clear on those two questions will go along way towards clearing up your confusion.
You might also think about how RedHat recently made a billion dollars.
I developed hardware for many years. A lot of this hardware was based on FPGAs. FPGAs, while hardware, are made into a functional solution through code. You write your hardware description in Verilog of VHDL and you get a working product in return. Some of this code took years to develop, evolve and optimize. It was very, very costly. And, there was no imaginable way that it made sense to release it as free (freedom) code. Doing that meant going out of business or seriously damaging a revenue stream that funded the development in the first place.
The same applies to my hospital example. Not free to own and not free to modify. In fact, it is both expensive and very much closed. And there is nothing wrong with that.
My basic premise remains true regardless of which flavor of "free" you choose to focus on: None of this would be possible without the financials to support and promote the release of gratis/freedom software. Impossible.
You mentioned MS as the greatest contributor to the Linux kernel last year. That cost MS millions to support. Those millions had to come from non-gratis/non-freedom software that MS charges for and keeps as closed source in order to earn money and employ their people. That's their model and there's nothing wrong with it.
RMS --or anyone else-- rejecting non-freedom software offerings in isolation of the realities that connect the two is nonsense. You would not have one without the other. It's a symbiotic relationship.
To further use your example: Support Microsoft non-gratis/non-freedom software offerings if you want to support the worlds largest contributor to the Linux kernel last year. I don't know, it could be a nice gesture by RMS and other proponents of his philosophies to support, rather than reject, MS in order to voice approval for their --per your assertion-- unmatched support of Linux (and probably other gratis/freedom software).
The healthier approach, in my opinion, is to recognize that both models have their place and that both have their evolutionary reasons to be perfectly valid and exist. I do and I try to support both.
The problem with the word "free" in English is that it has two meanings. In other languages there are distinct words for these two meanings. In Spanish they are "gratis" and "libre". So, gratis/libre software cannot exist outside the realities of the exact opposite type of software, non-free in every sense of the word. And that's OK.
My problem is with extremists who insist in not recognizing this and see the world through one and only one lens.
I use gratis/libre software. However, more often than not, I will look for paid software for a lot of applications where I need to ensure that proper support exists and, sometimes more importantly, that the software continues to be developed and evolves. All too often gratis/libre software falls short as developers loose interest in a field, leave school and need to earn a living or completely falls through the cracks and remains stagnant for years. Stories about this kind of thing abound.
In my own case, I have many examples of using gratis/libre software and then actively seeking paid alternatives in order to have a better solution with a single point of support.
The other issue with the freedom to modify part of the argument is that this is only good for us geeks. The average folk out there derives no direct value whatsoever from this. And, in a lot of cases, neither do we even though a lot of us could.
Here's the non-computing example for this: Do you fix your own car? Perhaps you do. I don't. Any more. When I was 19 I spent most of my weekends under the car or in the engine compartment. I can take an engine or transmission apart and rebuild it like the best mechanics. Yet, I have not done this for years. Why? That's just not what I do any more. I have other interests. And, more importantly, I need to focus my time, money and efforts elsewhere.
When faced with gratis/libre software that comes with source and a license to hack, frankly, in most cases, I have zero interest in doing so. I've done some, but that's not what I am in front of the computer to do every day. No, I need to get my work done and my job isn't defined as fixing problems with OpenOffice or some other piece of software. OpenOffice, as an example, has never worked for me or any business where I tried my best to introduce it. It is unreasonable to expect any business to continue to use a solution that does not work. So, in all cases, we moved on, paid for MS Office and got back to real work.
So, geeks want the ability to hack but I'd bet you that most just want to get on with building their products rather than fixing a problem with PHP or whatever. Sure, some do hack, a lot of them do hack, but that does not justify a position AGAINST closed source software.
I think that, in the end, we probably agree on a lot. I just don't like extremes in anything, from politics to religion and, yes, software. In most cases one population needs the other. It's OK to want to support gratis/libre software. I am just contending that this should not happen at the exclusion and vilification of paid/closed software because one would not exist without the other. Your MS example is the best proof I need: Support non-free software and you get huge benefits in the free software community. And that's OK. RMS and other should actively promote and support this.
This ain't a hobby.