The story discusses the OSI being irrelevant but says nothing against Open Source, quite the contrary. On the other hand, what it does not discuss is anything r

The story discusses the OSI being irrelevant but says nothing against Open Source, quite the contrary. On the other hand, what it does not discuss is anything related to the FSF. > Even if the Ethical Source guys and their Hippocratic License might not be watertight, it's still a much better effort than "you can use it for anything you want". There is nothing wrong with “you can use it for anything you want”. There are many reasons to avoid copyleft licenses. So you need to be more persuasive and provide more insights if you want to be taken seriously. > Leeching and entitlement is highly prevalent (just watch what happens when someone accidentally publishes software with a wrong license and the abuse they get for correcting their mistake) You seem to have an issue with a specific case; which one is it? Otherwise, any licensing change is controversial if you listen to the “right” people. Your point is a bit puzzling though, as from my experience, the bullies are people advocating for the FSF and GPL. They tend to be even worse because of the moral implications of the Free Software movement, which sees anything non-GPL as a personal offense. Open Source proponents merely say that the developer should do whatever the hell they want with their code. > and the whole original philosophy of open source is being disregarded. The philosophy of Open Source is that the source should be open. All the whining about leaching and freeloaders does not come from Open Source advocates but from the people you seem to defend for some reason. What specific bits of the various Open Source philosophies is at odds with people re-using the code for closed applications?