I think the FSF appeared at a critical juncture and that the tools they built, that were totally free, helped to fix the direction that software was going. Wit

I think the FSF appeared at a critical juncture and that the tools they built, that were totally free, helped to fix the direction that software was going. With the rise of Linux as the working GNU kernel an entire generation (or two) became aware and appreciative of open source which then went on to become the backbone of most of the internet and now those companies are some of (if not the) largest contributors to open source. With that said you’re right, with GPLv3 they moved the fight into new domains that aren’t as obvious or really “as big of a deal” to a majority of people. Also with the rise of things like JavaScript GNU, under Stallman, became the old man crying at the children. Stallman hated the rise of “non-trivial” JavaScript and refuses to work with proprietary code so GNU could never have developed e.g. React or Tensorflow. We now have a new generation of open source tooling that was developed more in spite of the FSF than by it. The current environment will in turn spark a new generation of tooling down the line that is even more removed from the likes of Stallman; who once responded to a request I sent to work on a JS library advertised on the GNU website with the fact that I should call it F/LOSS instead of open source (and nothing else.) So while I respect the FSF for the work they did in creating what we have today, the time where they were leading the fight to save software is long passed. They won in some ways and the world is better for it, but they lost in others and I’m not sure the world is that worse because of it. Having trade secrets isn’t completely a bad thing as it allows competition and different implementations, though that part is simply my opinion I suppose.