You can call it 'one sided' and 'dogmatic' or you can call it 'consistent' and 'clear', seeing as it is a single entity that is broadcasting this opinion it mak

You can call it 'one sided' and 'dogmatic' or you can call it 'consistent' and 'clear', seeing as it is a single entity that is broadcasting this opinion it makes sense for that single entity to be on it's own side of the argument. The larger discussion can be seen in open core, open source, shareware, proprietary software, etc. We are too used to scizhophrenic political parties with opinions all over the place. To the point that if there is a political party with a clear agenda then it is 'dogmatic' and 'one-sided' (hello extremists). The whole point of a representative democracy is that you follow the school of thought that represents your beliefs, if you can't trust any organization to stay true to their principles (hello startups getting bought by FAGMAN) then the whole system has lost it's foundational precondition (rendering it meaningless). For this reason I am glad to see FSF and GNU stick with the dogma they represent, practice what you preach. I kind of feel like this is a similar discussion as whether to separate church and state. One is clearly dogmatic while the other is supposed to be a platform for (essentially religious) discussion. The problem is that the platform has to be grounded in some principle and then you've got dogma again. Another manifestation is decentralized vs monolithic... Free software is about finding the principles to base government on so that religion can be discussed freely (policies diverging and converging). The technical problem of managing that is a version control system. I'm still waiting for them to become like governments but Subspace was launched yesterday and it is definitely in the direction of it.