This is a weird converse of the "proprietary is trying to cancel RMS" argument - arguing that proprietary won because RMS has been cancelled? Or something like

This is a weird converse of the "proprietary is trying to cancel RMS" argument - arguing that proprietary won because RMS has been cancelled? Or something like that? The idea that Free is evil because it has no warranty is... kind of confusing. The author had an argument regarding support contracts and Object-Only models, and yes that's entirely true. Free can be a two tiered system: you get the code on it's own with no warranty and figure it out yourself, or you can buy a support contract from someone who has already figured everything out and is willing to guide you along. This is a perfectly fine system. The author is flirting with an actual argument about, say, the quality of `npm`; but it's wrapped around all sorts of weird alternative definitions of "freedom from source code". I call it weird because Free won in a lot of contexts where, at least according to this particular argument, it shouldn't have. The story about custom versions of Windows is utterly horrifying. The entire point about code signing is a strawman. The FSF isn't against code signing, they're against technical lockouts that prevent knowledgeable users from installing alternate software versions. Most Linux distros not only have code signing support, but are also signed with Microsoft UEFI keys so they'll boot without special configuration on most PCs. I entirely agree with the author's contention about software patents and have been thoroughly downvoted in various forums for suggesting that software patents would have been a fairer bargain than copyright. I also think they have a point with the FSF being terribly ineffective at lobbying. Actually, I'd go one further - before Right to Repair became a buzzword the entire movement as a whole hasn't had a consistent thing to rally around. And then they go straight for a "why don't we have public libraries but for proprietary software" argument. This is so out of left field I don't even. Copyright owners have been very effective at shutting public libraries out of digital distribution. It's even to the point where the Author's Guild is yelling at Amazon to let libraries rent out digital copies. Publishers hate libraries because they're less-lucrative competitors to streaming services that they can sell exclusives to. Nobody in publishing wants easily-negotiated licensing terms for distributors; they want to sell entire works as exclusives to specific platforms at the expense of other platforms. There's an argument in here somewhere - one about how the FSF has manifestly failed at protecting users more than similarly-aligned organizations (e.g. EFF, Mozilla Foundation). I don't think they got that across very well. also >When the GPL was written, when software failed, it meant I didn’t get notifications about printer jams. Today, when software fails, it means I get a lethal dose of radiation. Therac-25 happened years before the GPL was written. You even cited the Wikipedia article.