I am more of an open-source than free-software advocate. I think this post explains it well and it was also my reaction to DeVault's post. I have no opinion on

I am more of an open-source than free-software advocate. I think this post explains it well and it was also my reaction to DeVault's post. I have no opinion on whether the FSF is dying but what I did not understand about DeVault's post is what they can do about it. The only reason for FSF to exist is to protect the rights of the users of software, often at the expense of the developers. That is why copyleft exists, why the FSF exists. They cannot "change" and embrace open source and still have any purpose. You could argue that they could be friendlier to OSS but if they are, how does that help the free software movement? For the free software movement to be successful the open source movement has to be less successful. More developers need to embrace copyleft licenses over MIT, BSD, Apache. As a developer, my interest in open source has always been in engaging with other developers. I prefer that model, even if a company wants to go make money off my code. I had option to choose a different license, or not contribute to an existing project. I did so for the collaboration and opportunity to work with other developers to solve the same problem I needed to solve. Copyleft licensed software, more often than not, has other goals.