Yes, that would be a false dichotomy. However, the post you quote does not set it up as a dichotomy. My reading of it is that it asks the question "which of these two things is more important?" I would suggest that it would be better framed as "is the guarantee of future source access sufficiently important that it effects their choice of tools?"
GPL advocates tend to believe that access to source is sufficiently important to effect their choice of tools. You are entitled to that opinion.
There is clearly also a significant body of users don't particularly care about access to source, and simply want tools that work. You may argue that this is shortsighted, but they are entitled to that opinion. It is entirely reasonable to discount future use of your tool of choice vs. current use of your tool of choice.
There is a group of GPL advocates (not all of them, happily) who advance the argument that this is because the people who don't care are stupid and/or ignorant, and that if they only knew what the GPL advocates know, they would of course have the same preferences as do said GPL advocates. This is an incredibly egotistical position, without a place in serious discussion -- a line of reasoning that requires the assumption that a significant population is entirely irrational or entirely composed of people stupider than the individual advancing the line of reasoning cannot be taken seriously.
> I would suggest that it would be better framed as "is the guarantee of future source access sufficiently important that it effects their choice of tools?"
This is also a false dichotomy, although more cunningly hidden. It still assumes that giving users source access is somehow a hindrance to the creation of high quality software but Freedom and quality are orthogonal axises.
Removing freedom to see the source might not effect peoples choice it's self I agree, but really why should it also effect the quality of the software?
The obvious answer is software developed within business models based on vendor lock-in. However if you ask customers, "is the guarantee of freedom to change suppliers sufficiently important to your choice of supplier?" You'll get a very different set of answers.
> ...This is an incredibly egotistical position...
I agree.
GPL is not a license for developers, it's for users. In particular it's about giving users the choice of who to work with, and making it easy for them to do so. Whether that means modifying software themselves, directly paying people to modify software or simply changing some URLs in a config file (e.g. rsync.net) they have the freedom to choose. A freedom that is enforced directly in the programs they use, not via convenient business arrangements.
> Removing freedom to see the source might not effect peoples choice it's self I agree, but really why should it also effect the quality of the software?
We are in violent agreement. Freedom to see the source is entirely orthogonal to quality. However, the space of implementations is not fully populated; there are domains in which there is only a (good, closed) solution and a (poor, GPL) solution (this is in no way a criticism of the quality of GPL'd software in general; there are also domains with only a (good, open) solution, or where the GPL solution is significantly better than all competitors). It's not unreasonable for some users to prefer the (good, closed) tool in that situation.
GPL advocates tend to believe that access to source is sufficiently important to effect their choice of tools. You are entitled to that opinion.
There is clearly also a significant body of users don't particularly care about access to source, and simply want tools that work. You may argue that this is shortsighted, but they are entitled to that opinion. It is entirely reasonable to discount future use of your tool of choice vs. current use of your tool of choice.
There is a group of GPL advocates (not all of them, happily) who advance the argument that this is because the people who don't care are stupid and/or ignorant, and that if they only knew what the GPL advocates know, they would of course have the same preferences as do said GPL advocates. This is an incredibly egotistical position, without a place in serious discussion -- a line of reasoning that requires the assumption that a significant population is entirely irrational or entirely composed of people stupider than the individual advancing the line of reasoning cannot be taken seriously.