Different people and organizations have widely varying reasons for wanting to share source code. Some of these reasons are selfish, and some are completely altr

Different people and organizations have widely varying reasons for wanting to share source code. Some of these reasons are selfish, and some are completely altruistic. Many are both selfish and altruistic- one could easily argue that the FSF falls into that category, not that there's anything wrong with that. The whole point of creating Open Source was to acknowledge that. The GNU philosophy is very, very, very specific in its means and goals and presents a very specific worldview, and plenty of people (maybe even the majority?) who are interested sharing code don't agree with much of it. You state that Open Source was created "to keep the code sharing parts while shedding the ethical positions of the GNU philosophy", and many of the people who were instrumental in creating the concept would agree with you. But the reason the concept has stuck around has nothing to do with that. It's just a very, very useful concept. It's very handy to have some way to refer to software for which source code is available, redistributable, and reuseable, and not instantly imply all of the metric ton of legal or philosophical baggage associated with FSF-approved projects. Someone who doesn't agree with the ethical portions of the GNU philosophy isn't unethical, they just have a different point of view. Yet, that's what you imply in your phrasing. Tons of people who contribute greatly to Open Source (or even Free Software!) consider certain elements of the GNU philosophy to be unethical. This whole "with us or against us" attitude is what turns off so many people to the FSF and RMS in the first place. It's like PETA saying that you are either 100% on board with them and everything they do, or you are in favor of murdering puppies, and there's no middle ground or room for more nuanced perspectives or alternative philosophies. I'm not arguing against the GNU philosophy; I agree with much of it and strongly disagree with some other parts of it. As always, I'm just strongly in favor of a world where people think for themselves, come to their own conclusions, cooperate with others when they have overlapping goals, and don't go out of their way to continually villainize people who aren't 100% on board with every single line item in one guy's personal doctrine.