I thought I would start seeing red and frothing at the mouth when I read this, but this is actually a pretty reasonable take. I wouldn't say that the takeaway i

I thought I would start seeing red and frothing at the mouth when I read this, but this is actually a pretty reasonable take. I wouldn't say that the takeaway is that open source is just a diversion though - it's just that we should actually think about the fundamental software freedoms when we create a free software project. It's not just about making the source code available and slapping a GPL license on there (though that's important). If one of our goals is to give the users control over the software we develop, we should think about whether our software is actually achieving that goal - i.e. thinking about: have we actually designed this software in a way that makes it easy to modify and customize? Should there be a higher-level layer through which less technically savvy users can still customize this software to some extent? and other questions like this. It's easy to get caught up in a primitive mode of thinking "FOSS license good, proprietary license bad", but we have to remember that free software licenses are not ends in themselves, but are a just a means to achieving freedom for users. Whether this goal is really achieved is a function not just of the software license but also of the actual design and customizability of the software in question.