I didn't think it was possible, but your rhetoric is devolving. Ad hominem is the last refuge of the losing debater...and you aren't even debating anyone.

John, I've tracked the FOSS Movement for years. Anything you consider an "ad hominem" attack I can substantiate.

Ad hominem doesn't mean unsubstantiated. It means you're attacking the person rather than their ideas.

But since you asked:

1. "They are simply destructive"
2. They "find weakening the efforts of others as its own reward."

Substantiate both. I look forward to this.

John, lighten up.

The SFLC is destructive for the reasons I stated, it wants to fight anything that does not further its ideals.

The FOSS Movement's consistent antagonism towards protection of IPRs and its gleeful acceptance of piracy (even though these will not further adoption of FOSS technologies, and even though FOSS development-business models provide only limited alternatives) tell me that it regards weakening others as its own end.

You just equated "the FOSS community shows agitation whenever others do not support its ideals" with "it wants to fight anything that does not further its ideals."

If taking a position on something is a "fight" then you are equally "destructive" when you make an antagonistic comment about every piece of FOSS-related news.

I really don't see how expressing an opinion is "destructive" unless your opponent is very insecure.

John,

Its important to comment on the FOSS Movement because:

1) these ideological battles of the FSF and SFLC are not very important to consumers (how many customers bought the Linux boxes at Walmart to tinker with them?)

2) innovative firms are vilified by the FOSS Movement, and stand to lose substantial investments for innovating activity which the FOSS Movement cannot replace

3) public policy may be harmed by the antagonistic nature of the FOSS Movement

You're still implying that "innovative firms" - by which you mean proprietary software companies - will be "harmed" because certain FOSS supporters "vilify" or have an "antagonistic nature" towards them. Sticks and stones, Noel.

You're also implying that innovation only happens at firms that certain FOSS demagogues are "antagonistic" to, eg Microsoft. But your comment about how many people buy Linux boxes at Walmart to tinker with them misses the point - anyone has the ability to tinker with Linux, and even if only a small percentage of buyers do, if just a few of them come up with useful software, then everyone is better off, including the majority who aren't programmers and will never modify a piece of software. FOSS allows innovation to come from unexpected quarters.

You're placing every economic actor in a neat little box: "innovation" happens only within the walls of narrowly defined "innovative firms," "customers" are passive consumers. The real world is not so simple.

And you continue to assert that "the FOSS movement" - in which you seem to include every anarchist script kiddie usenet commentator you happen to read - has some malevolent power to harm the "legitimate" software industry through some means other than competition in the market. But you never say specifically how these FOSS wizards will accomplish that.

If you say that software patents are good policy and should be maintained, that's a real policy debate worth having. But if you simply invoke an amorphously defined group ("the FOSS movement") and write post after juvenile post calling them names like "destructive" and "antagonistic" then you are contributing nothing of value.

John, by innovative firms, I mean firms that deliver valuable goods-services to consumers. As far as I can tell, the majority are proprietary firms, some of which have FOSS P&Ls. There are a small number of stand-alone FOSS firms. What I don't mean by innovative firms are FOSS entities that simply want to overthrow those firms that are more powerful than they are by preaching subversive, and unproductive ideologies.