> Free software developer do what is technically right most of the time, while proprietary software developers have to deal with that kind of market forces all

> Free software developer do what is technically right most of the time, while proprietary software developers have to deal with that kind of market forces all the time. I'm no fan of EME but you completely lost me there. GCC has been kept monolithic not for technical reasons, but for fear of modularization leading companies to close source their frontends[1]. This has come up again now that LLVM/Clang is gaining on GCC[2] The decision to avoid a stable ABI or even API for Linux drivers is again driven by non-technical reasons[3] (Linus actually specifically says the reasons are non-technical). Whether or not you agree with these reasons, I find it hard to call them any more "technical" than the reasons you ascribe to the "rights holders" (also am I the only one that thinks it's silly that the term these companies prefer to call themselves by feels a lot like "landlords"? Who as we all know are universally loved!). As far as getting better software, it depends. A lot of free software projects end up just doing what the creators feel is interesting instead of things users actually want (cf. Linux on the desktop). I'm not faulting them for that (it's their project and time after all!) but it does sometimes leave users of free software out in the cold unless they have the skills and time to contribute the features themselves. [1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-01/msg00572.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-01/msg00572.html [2]: https://lwn.net/Articles/582242/ https://lwn.net/Articles/582242/ [3]: https://lwn.net/1999/0211/a/lt-binary.html https://lwn.net/1999/0211/a/lt-binary.html