> Open Source is usually $0 cost because I believe there is a problem with Stallman's guidelines "Open Source" is not RMS's thing, he is the "Free" software gu

> Open Source is usually $0 cost because I believe there is a problem with Stallman's guidelines "Open Source" is not RMS's thing, he is the "Free" software guy. By getting that wrong you kinda disqualify yourself from being taken seriously by those of us who consider ourselves "Free" software fanatics and who see the whole "Open Source" movement as a distraction from the main point. Not that that matters, because effectively no one cares. Most people, like you, seem to not even realize there's any difference. Speaking as a self-described "Free" software fanatic, I feel like we failed nearly completely. At least socially and politically (technically GNU software runs half the planet, eh? You're using some right now, no doubt.) - - - - Still speaking as a "Free" software fanatic, it seems like there's no point in Open Source except to benefit people who don't want to share their improvements, and so this effort, coming from Microsoft, seems like a tricky way to get devs to work for them for free (paradoxically by dangling the idea of a paid career in front of them, eh?)