I actually don't think that free software has been mired by rigid views. It's simply been a terminology war from the beginning, that the FSF has generally lost

I actually don't think that free software has been mired by rigid views. It's simply been a terminology war from the beginning, that the FSF has generally lost: every time they coin a term, its meaning is completely confused by something else. Just look at the hijackings. How many people really know that most of the components of what's called Linux have actually been destined for an OS called GNU, which has a different kernel (HURD)? How many people think free software refers to $0.00? And most important of all, how many people must still think that free and open-source are the same thing? Free software has earned the undeserved reputation of being incompatible with businesses, when the reality is that it doesn't prevent anyone from selling anything. I suppose, like any gesture of trust, no one wants to be first: which business will "risk" opening up all its code for competitors to essentially learn from without reciprocating? The reality is different: not only would the business be able to tap into thousands of GPL'd projects without having to write its own code, but it would be able to benefit from code reviews, fixes, and new contributions. If any competitors did steal the code, the GPL requires the competitor to open everything up in return. These restrictions are really not that unreasonable for software companies, who you'd think would want to produce high-quality software for the lowest possible cost.