One more word about what I meant with irrational behavier. For me it seems he would much rather have no computer at all, than one with a normal OSS license.
That he cares much more about licenses, than actually to have as much open software as needed. So if the original goal was to operate in a open world, where you are allowed to study and modify the software you use, I call it irrational and fanatic to focus on the license. And for the ordinary user there is by far not enough OSS to satisfy the needs.
It's an argument for why LGPL exists, and when FSF thinks its the appropriate choice. It seems to me that it disproves the irrational black-and-white view of the world you cite.
Well, it's true, I wasn't aware of the lgpl anymore, but apparently just like rms, because this quote from him from the interview, in which he seperates the Open-Source Movement, from the "Free Software Movement":
> They think it’s just fine if someone wants to
> write proprietary extensions to their software
would mean, that everybody who uses the lgpl is not part of the "Free software movement" anymore ...
