> But his stuff is dogmatic in nature _NOT_ logical in nature. He would rather software be crippled than be useful but non-free His position is self-consistent

> But his stuff is dogmatic in nature _NOT_ logical in nature. He would rather software be crippled than be useful but non-free His position is self-consistent and logical. He actually is okay with exceptions (such as using closed-source pacemakers if no open source ones exist), but those exceptions need a STRONG justification because they are depriving people of their rights. If you believe that proprietary software is a violation of the user's rights, it's perfectly consistent to be so strongly opposed to it. > He wants everyone to magically develop on their spare time for free with copyleft licenses This is not true. He has no issues with companies like Red Hat (who primarily make money off of GPLd software) nor with individual developers selling their GPL licensed software. > With his model you fall into the musician trap The fact that companies like Red Hat exist counters that point I think. I don't think your prediction adequately captures the market forces and profession.