It's more reasonable that your stance here. You can quibble about how to define freedom, but given that RMS includes freedom from future vendor lock-in, it's e

It's more reasonable that your stance here. You can quibble about how to define freedom, but given that RMS includes freedom from future vendor lock-in, it's entirely reasonable for him to say that other developers don't talk about freedom (as he means it) - because they don't. It's not hypothetical - BSD-derived code has been used in closed-source operating systems (both windows and notably macos) and lots of other software. By using BSD over GPL you're choosing to make it easy for many people to use your code, even if that use eventually may support closed-source lock-in. Since most developers dabble in open source mostly as a prestige project, that's a reasonable choice - you're not doing it to prevent software monopolies or lock in, are you? So no, you don't care about freedom, exactly as RMS says. Most people are probably doing it for recognition by their peers and because they're interested in solving the problem at hand, and compromising on those two points for a slim chance that you might contribute to a more pervasively free software future sounds like a risky bet. None of the two minor projects I wrote and support use (L)GPL.