Nice Post :
However, "There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that's one major reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I don't want to be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred." -> I find this quote a bit rough. Linus should not care about it. It's like you do not call yourself a hacker because media don't know the difference between hacker and cracker.
Though I agree with you for the most part, depending on how much you care it's sometimes silly to fight a de facto, I don't say I'm "hacking on a project" to someone non-technical unless I'm prepared to spend a few moments explaining my use of the word. Like calling an Add() function that you know from experience returns a product and getting annoyed at the result.
In your example your saying you wouldn't use the word hacker because it has a negative connotation for other people, while in Linus' example he's not using the phrase free software because it has a negative connotation for himself.
It might be a bit rough if you're looking in on the issue as an outsider, or if you've never been faced with the dilemma of how to license your product, but you should know that there is an entire spectrum of licenses that could fall under the umbrella of 'free software' i.e. BSD, MIT, and the GPL.
When Linus says the 'extremists' of the free software world, I think, he's mainly refering to where the FSF is taking the GPL[v3] and what this new version proibits.
Open-source code is really only "open" to the people who know how to read it and write it and modify it. This excludes about 99.725 percent of the population. Proprietary code people are less rare.
So one of the reasons I chose to modify zentu.net's tagline from a "FOSS"-oriented tagline to an "OSS"-oriented one is precisely that . . . I admire Stallman's and Torvalds' benevolences and all, but people cannot work for free. FOSS is too often misclassified (by the MS camp) as being cheap, when in actuality it is just as valuable as proprietary. Anybody who wants to can get into any code base and can contribute value; it's totally binary. So I have to agree with Torvalds here.
Although I've never really "hated" Microsoft, I have felt really robbed by its lack of payment or even acknowledgment to me for all of my hours of service on their systems. It excluded the outside "people" factor from its business model, and that is why I think so many people are perturbed by it. OSS at least attempts to give individuals credit for their work.
So one of the reasons I chose to modify zentu.net's tagline from a "FOSS"-oriented tagline to an "OSS"-oriented one is precisely that . . . I admire Stallman's and Torvalds' benevolences and all, but people cannot work for free.
You do realize that "free software" doesn't necessarily mean "free of charge". As Stallman often said, when thinking of free software, think in terms of "free speech", not "free beer". You can, under GPL, charge the people for your software. As long as you give them the right to see and modify your code, that software is free.
More often than not, however, "free software" does mean "free of charge". You can sell support, but that's it. The reason is simple: if you try to distribute your software for a fee, someone else will do so for nothing. If nobody does, it probably means you hardly sell any copy.[1] Stallman managed to sell emacs thanks to the lack of global network (imho).
One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software. You can even charge more, because the freedom you give to your client may cost you money —compared to the classic proprietary vendor lock-in.
> One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software.
I've worked as a software consultant for years, making turn-key software and modifications to existing infrastructure and support, and all of that.
The thing is ... it's not fun. If it's not your product, you don't have the time, the energy, the resources to put much love in the products you're working on.
If you're working on custom software, customers only want to pay the minimal price that will get their needs solved. If it's support for an open-source software you're working on, if that software is too good, or is of no interest to companies, then you're not going to get hired.
Consulting services really take the fun out of programming, that's why I'm a proponent of a mixed model ... keep your advantages proprietary, open-source the rest.
