content: Why I am on the ''open source'' side and not on the ''free software'' side. (xpost from v/Linux) ''The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success...'' (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html) I have a lot of respect for Lord Stallman, and 60% of the time he's right every time. But this is the part where he lost me: ''Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' Yeah I don't wanna be part of any social movement. I'm selfish, I only care about me. I use open source because it solves my problems, I don't care about what's right or wrong. Being a libertarian as I think I am, I value my freedoms, but also other people's freedoms. And other people should not be forced to give away their work for the sake of ''a better society''. You're ''free'' to get pay for your code, but I prefer open source for security reasons, so if there's a way for me to pay you for your software that also allows me to make sure it is safe to run, then we're all set. What do you guys think? I'd suggest to read the entire article http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html