I agree that Debian gets too much flak from the FSF even though the non-free
repo is optional and usually not enabled by default. Also, the Linux kernel
doesn't include non-free firmware by default (unlike Ubuntu) and requires the
installation of non-free kernel firmware from the non-free repo.
You are right about the people on this board. This project is more about
people saying you are evil or unethical unless you follow the religion of the
FSF exactly than actual development of the operating system.
Want to know the current state of most "free software" projects? They are
usually one man teams that are low in quality or quickly get abandoned after
the developer loses interest or his full time job takes focus. They do it for
evangelical reasons and if the project does become useful, it is limited due
to the strict licensing structures.
Want to know the current state of most "open source" projects? I mean take a
look at MongoDB, Scala, Play Framework, Node.js, jQuery, Firefox, Magento,
Wordpress, nginx, Apache, and Android. Those are only a few I can think of
but it does show that these projects are actually considered top quality and
useful. Most of these are under a more permissive license to increase
adoption and integration. Even though they are under a permissive license,
there is the worry about companies being evil and making them non-free, but
the reality is that most developers and companies just want to use the
software and contribute back to the upstream project instead of forking it.
Biggest thing of them all? Both "free software" and "open source" are pretty
much the same thing when they use the same licenses. Apache, BSD, GPL, MIT,
whatever. Its just that "free software" has this evangelist, attacking, and
confrontational attitude and history to it that turns off most people.
