> GPLv3 came out in 2007 so that’s less than 20 years. One would hope that he'd have an achievement at least once a decade. > They also sue people [0] who br

> GPLv3 came out in 2007 so that’s less than 20 years. One would hope that he'd have an achievement at least once a decade. > They also sue people [0] who break the license, so that’s good. That's nice. No need to keep engineers around if they're just going to maintain a license then. Fire everyone and hire lawyers. > I’m not sure how relevant FSF is supposed to be. Very, I imagine. Very few organizations want to be small. Given that copyleft licenses are losing badly to more permissive licenses, I imagine that they'd prefer to be bigger and more effective. > They are small ($1M annual budget [1] and 14 staff) and think that’s ok when compared to stuff like Mozilla where their CEO makes more than the entire FSF budget. The ROI from FSF compared to Mozilla seems really good and impactful. I'd argue the opposite. Mozilla, for all of its faults, is actually trying to get open source and privacy respecting software into the hands of end users who aren't inherently ideological about this stuff. We can debate endlessly about their tactics and results, but in this decade at least they're massively more effective and important than the FSF. I'd argue that the FSF is small in terms of staff and budget because the leadership has failed.