Again, abstract criticisms of FOSS in a vacuum are meaningless. How many proprietary software projects have been abandoned? Common sense says many thousands have been. Those who purchased a later-abandoned proprietary program are really up a creek because they are not allowed to produce their own upgrades or fixes to the software or hire another to do so.

Remember, all FOSS is not the GPL - most other FOSS licenses integrate quite well with proprietary technologies (even GPL v2 does so for many companies - at least enough to build a business on). Most FOSS participants not named Stallman aren't looking for "virtuous" software, they're looking to be free of the whims of a monopoly.

How does calling open source a lot of bad names fit in with PFF's philosophy, anyway? Isn't FOSS just another facet of the free market at work, that should stand or fall on its own merits?

John, you are exactly right; FOSS is a part of the technological community and it should be judged by its merits.

You miss the point of my post though; many FOSS supporters have argued, with the intent of absolving FOSS from patent liability and economic scrutiny, how FOSS can get along without formal capital and organizational structures.

John, check out these links:

http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/08/shaping_america_3.html

http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042091.php

http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/11/why_foss_wants.html