Certainly no downvotes from me. I spent more than a decade on the "RMS is a dirty f'ing hippie who will bring down the wonderful open source movement with his intemperate antics." side of the argument too (though to be fair: I never bought into the "Copyleft is an unreasonable infringement on freedom" nonsense that some of my compatriots did).
The guy was right about basically everything. The anti-tivoization provisions that the FSF was talking about more than a decade ago, and that appeared in a usable license almost 6 tears ago, would absolutely have had a place in preventing this nonsense. Yet no one uses it, because RMS is a dirty f'ing hippie.
(And yes, I know the real world is complicated, and that corporate sponsors of copyleft development "refuse" to use the GPLv3 and cannot be convinced. The same thing was said about copyleft itself 15 years ago. The commercial world adapted. They'll figure this out too if we demand it.)
It's probably RMS's single mindedness and inflexibility that allowed the FSF to see this coming down the pipe. I now feel naive that I thought this was Chicken Little stuff and irrelevant to most users.
The guy was right about basically everything. The anti-tivoization provisions that the FSF was talking about more than a decade ago, and that appeared in a usable license almost 6 tears ago, would absolutely have had a place in preventing this nonsense. Yet no one uses it, because RMS is a dirty f'ing hippie.
(And yes, I know the real world is complicated, and that corporate sponsors of copyleft development "refuse" to use the GPLv3 and cannot be convinced. The same thing was said about copyleft itself 15 years ago. The commercial world adapted. They'll figure this out too if we demand it.)