Who is to say your idea of how an abstract concept like "freedom" should apply to software is more correct than Stallman's?
> I think everyone would be better served saying what they really stand for, starting with changing the name of the FSF.
Okay, I'm stumped. If not the spreading of free software, what exactly is the FSF's agenda? Because without any specifics your comment is just more FUD.
> Who is to say your idea of how an abstract concept like "freedom" should apply to software is more correct than Stallman's?
I like the dictionary definition of freedom. Stallman has a set of concerns and ideas about how they can be answered, and has set up conditions and restrictions to try to propagate them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but freedom isn't a very accurate way to describe it.
> If not the spreading of free software, what exactly is the FSF's agenda? Because without any specifics your comment is just more FUD.
I don't think my statement are FUD, as I'm trying to correct common misconceptions. If you want what the GPL offers (and many do) then it's only right that you choose it. However, conflating those ideals with freedom is inaccurate and misleading. If actual freedom is what you're after, a new BSD license is much closer to that. Only public domain is more free, but PD has some international interpretation issues.
As for the FSF's agenda, I don't pretend that it's an evil, secret conspiracy. It's not. They spell it out well enough on their site for all to see, once you filter out the fake freedom bits. Their core ideals are noble enough, though I disagree with some of their implementation.
> I think everyone would be better served saying what they really stand for, starting with changing the name of the FSF.
Okay, I'm stumped. If not the spreading of free software, what exactly is the FSF's agenda? Because without any specifics your comment is just more FUD.