Before the horde descends, I thought I might respond to the suggestion that RMS is anti-capitalist.  This comes up frequently and is a bit of a red herring.  I won&#x27;t try to speak for him (he can obviously do that well enough himself), however I think it is worth considering the free software movement in today&#x27;s reality.<p>Back when they only thing that described free software was the GNU manifesto, we still had the idea that writing software that enabled businesses was a good idea.  It may be a consequence of free software that it will become difficult to charge money directly for software (as a product), but that shouldn&#x27;t stop companies from making money.<p>Especially now when we see how open source software is almost taken for granted, we can see that companies flourish, not die.  It is true that you practically can not charge money for a compiler any more, but are we worse off?  No.  We have different and arguably better business models for that kind of software -- and we haven&#x27;t given up capitalism at all.  My tools are dramatically better than they were 30 years ago (when I first started in this business).  The cost has also dropped to nearly zero.  We have become efficient.<p>It is true that the FSF considers software freedom a moral imperative.  While it may be true that some kinds of software will be difficult to produce in this manner, we can see that there are several very large companies that thrive producing virtually every kind of software.  Personally, I don&#x27;t think there are many businesses that will be better off with our old software-as-a-product business models -- games being a probable exception.  What we have now is better, more efficient, enabling for the general population -- and much better for businesses.  I have a hard time seeing it from an &quot;anti-capitalist&quot; position.  And, just from my personal perspective, I don&#x27;t think RMS ever did either.