2 ms·

This is just RMS being consistent. He's never liked non-GNU licenses, and considers anything that allows the use of open source code in closed source projects t

This is just RMS being consistent. He's never liked non-GNU licenses, and considers anything that allows the use of open source code in closed source projects to be the spawn of the devil. He'll continue saying this until his dying breath. That said, GNU and the GPL have been very helpful, sometimes instrumental, in fostering and protecting open source code and developers, so I'll put up with his ivory tower vision for the practical benefits it's brought us. Call him crazy (and he probably is), but he's been a net benefit to society, which is a lot more than most achieve.

teddyh 7y ago
> considers anything that allows the use of open source code in closed source projects to be the spawn of the devil. He'll continue saying this until his dying breath. I claim that RMS has never said anything like that, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. He’s consistently said that it’s better if software was copylefted (like GPL) than if it was simply free software (like BSD), but he has consistently reserved the, like you say, “spawn of the devil”-type categorization for proprietary software and worse, like malware, etc.