The goose has laid enough golden eggs, time to kill it and cook it for dinner?

So let's say you just released some commercial software. Would you ever allow for a compromise in the associated license? Would you ever allow somebody to "mostly" comply to your terms?

If you don't like our terms of use, don't use our software. We're not trying to "fit" with anyone. We're writing software for our own needs. This is what drives us to write code and, in turn, what drives the Free software movement. The GPL works to help ensure the code we write remains Free - not just "mostly" free.

Free software may be "unworkable" for you. That's fine. By the same token, many commercial solutions on the market are worthless to us, either due to the financial cost or the closed nature of development. For example, if I need a feature tweaked somewhat, I'm at your mercy. This is unacceptable for a lot of people.

Rather than just assuming that your position is correct, perhaps you should take a look around. Do you realize just how huge the Free software movement has become? Can you comprehend the fact that there might be a reason for it?

Have a look at www.Joomla.org or many similar free software projects that continue to grow exponentially. Why? Because thousands of people like me (independent consultants and small companies) charge good money to customize and maintain installations for our clients, and we also contribute contribute back to Joomla and others, knowing it will grow our core profitable platform. It's a new ecosystem, and it's entirely economically sustainable.

The GPL is a copyright stipulation.

If you didn't want to abide by the GPL, there would be only one simple and legal solution - remove the GPL'd work and do your own work instead.

Then you can stipulate who can make money from it and how, because it will be your work.

People are free create an alternative using BSD licensed works - maybe they should do that, they could make lots of money and snap up lots of market share, and produce really stiff competition against my OS of choice.

Maybe the above sentence does not compute to you, though - if not, consider re-evaluating your understanding of what free software is, and why it's so important to some very good programmers, and why it's logically beneficial to us all.

The idea that businesses cam be parasitic and lazy, and force their old business models on the world around them is on its way out, because the current environment in terms of intellectual property and technological development requires that a company understands how to adapt its business model or dies.

Soon to be cases in point, software companies that aren't quick to adapt to making money in a world full of free software (which is very easy), and media companies that attack their customers to try and keep the broadband-enabled earth flat.

If these FCM Hippies and their methods are so incompatible with business, how did Linux, Apache et all get to where they are today?

The hippies don't mind if you make money from their software, as long as it remains free (as in freedom). In fact, many of the hippies would be quite happy to get paid to code, so long as their work stays GPL'd.

FOSS has mostly been a free ride for business. To quote the fictional Col. Jessup:
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it".

Don't question their methods. Just say "Thank you", and be on your way.

"There has never been a good fit between the FSFers, who believe that software really should be free, and the corporate types, who want to commodify operating systems as a way of providing a platform on which to hang money-making aps and services."

Whoa there cowboy! Have you ever heard of a little company called Google? Google is probably the very definition of the antithesis to your statement. They use a multitude - and a vast one, at that - of open source, free as in beer and free as in freedom Linux-based servers and other software to run their immensely profitable company. In fact, their reliance on such free software is one of the primary reasons for their immense profitability due to the customization of that free software, not necessarily just due to the lack of software licensing fees.

Never say never - doing so usually comes back to haunt you faster than you think.

If the Free Culture Movement's models are so unworkable, why are you worried about it? We're just another group of people trying a competing business model. It sounds like you're more worried that we might succeed than fail. This post seems an odd position for an organization named The Progress & Freedom Foundation. It reminds me of those countries that call themselves "Democratic People's Republic", to hide the fact that they are neither.

Open Source isn't just a big dump truck that carries around most of the internet $$$'s! It's a series of tubes!! Tubes I tell ya!!!

"There has never been a good fit between the FSFers, who believe that software really should be free, and the corporate types, who want to commodify operating systems as a way of providing a platform on which to hang money-making aps and services."

Then I guess your masthead is just corporate silly putty.

Either you believe in freedom or you don't. The people who wrote the GPL also wrote a bucketload of tools that comprise a standard Linux distribution. To tell them how to run their ship is antithetical to freedom, no? Afterall, they wrote it, they maintain it, they created the license for its distribution. It is, therefore, their intellectual property to do with as they please - even if you don't like the terms!

So if you don't like the terms, write your own software. That is exactly what the FSF did and that is why there are people who are complaining about the GPL now. They want the benefits of the work without having to agree to the terms and conditions of the license.

@ Mark Sweeney

I think this is a purposefully flamebait article. In fact after reading the other articles on this website I'm starting to think it's run by Microsoft, Jabba the Hut, the GNAA, or all of the above.