> “Free as in Freedom” has become outdated Not sure if it's outdated, but what is clear is that the world has largely rejected it (maybe we'll come to regret i

> “Free as in Freedom” has become outdated Not sure if it's outdated, but what is clear is that the world has largely rejected it (maybe we'll come to regret it later). On the smaller end of the spectrum, the rejection of GPLv3 by most critical projects (in particular, the Linux kernel) has meant that locked down devices powered by ostensibly free software have become increasingly common. On the other end of the spectrum, the wholesale rejection of AGPL by, well, more or less everybody, has enabled the SAAS providers to "proprietarize" free software. And on top of that, we have the general shift towards more permissive licensing in the FOSS world. Nowadays I'm more hopeful about right-to-repair and data portability style legislation as means to give individuals back some of the power over their own lives. > The FSF thinks it’s OK to “sell” your program I think originally it was because adding some "non-commercial only" clause would have made it difficult to cover costs of distribution. To an extent it applies even today, consider distributing free software from a (partly) ad-funded website etc. But as you say yourself, this is not per se a business model that covers the cost of developing the software, as you're giving the same distribution rights to the downstream user as the upstream developer. Then again, the "four freedoms" always were a set of moral principles, not a business model recipe.