Slashdot Mirror
FSF On How To Choose a License
ciaran_o_riordan writes "FSF have put together their license recommendations, beyond just their own licenses, for software, documentation, and other works: 'People often ask us what license we recommend they use for their project. We've written about this publicly before, but the information has been scattered around between different essays, FAQ entries, and license commentaries. This article collects all that information into a single source, to make it easier for people to follow and refer back to. The recommendations below are focused on licensing a work that you create — whether that's a modification of an existing work, or a new original work.'"
"Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL."
I find this advice very, very bad. This is where FSF's mentality goes so very wrong, and where they really don't seem to stand for freedom in any sense at all. Remember: freedom is a two-way concept, not a one-way concept as the FSF gladly would want it to be. "Of course we're all about open and free licenses, as long as you choose one of ours."
Your brain made an unauthorized copy of my work in your memory. Therefore, I may sue you for copyright infringement.
Notice how they never mentioned once the BSD license, arguably the most free license there is in the world.
The whole premise of this exercise is ridiculous.
You can't say that non-free software, music, games, films don't deserve protection and then turn around and say GPL'd (other other license) code _does_. Choose one or the other.
Use some variant of the GPL, or at least something that's copyleft. Use the Apache license if you just can't use GPL for some insurmountable reason. There are no other licenses.
Pretty much what one would expect from FSF.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
I guess it's predictable that the FSF wouldn't be in favor of BSD-style licenses, but if they're going to mention things like the Apache license, they should include the BSD license. BSD is not mentioned anywhere in their guide...which is a shame. Whether you agree with it or not, it's a valid license, and should be included in the decision tree for choosing a license.
Five FSF/GPL licenses, one that elsewhere they state categorically not to use, and the Apache license.
Well, finally there is a concise word someone whom we can trust more than we can trust others in the field, and they took their time to clarify information and to teach public. Their contribution is enormous and one can always learn from them, no matter how strong one's own expertise is. I listened to rms last year in Sarajevo, he is certainly authoritative in that field and also promotes very same goals that were my own reasons to get involved with IT in the first place. I, for one, would always back Mr. Stallman's views, opinions and teaching; rather than some Andrea Kempe or D. Brewer who spam my inbox on regular basis. It is very important to spread the word on the copyright and issues behind it; it is crucial for civilization's development and growth.
.Play.Open.Minded.
In Debian, if you release some documentation using the FDL, and if don't specify that it has no back-cover or invariant part, we'll consider it non-free (eg: it wont go in Debian main, wont be allowed to be put on the CDs, etc.). Yet, the FSF doesn't recognize how bad this license is, and continues to push for this broken one. This is really pure stupidity. People are going to release documentation under this license, thinking that it will render the documentation free, when in fact, it's going to do the exact opposite thing. Why can't the FSF learn and correct this huge mistake? I don't get it...
I recently did some editing on Wikipedia, and came to the issue of licensing my contributions (in this case, photos). I could choose between a dozen licenses, and figuring out the differences between them made my head hurt. The license-choosing process was way more involved than the upload itself, so I gave up and chose the recommended license. I understand the importance of making materials available so others can use them, but does it have to be this complex?
We're a developer group that is now writing a server library. We plan to use it for commercial projects by putting all the code into the library and creating a thin proprietary wrapper to keep clients happy.
It's a strategic move to use the LGPL, as if we used GPL then we'd have to sell proprietary licenses. Proprietary people would choose to either:
This way (by using LGPL) we get to extract as much free source-code from them as possible.
The problem now comes with the fact that our library can be used for web services. People could make changes to our library, use them in their commercial service and not make changes public.
I was searching the net and found these links:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/731246/lgpl-for-php-applications http://mohammed.morsi.org/blog/?q=node/270
The 2nd link claims you can just include an affero clause in the LGPLv3? What is your word on this?
Many thanks to the FSF. I love your work.
I often find myself wondering what license the FSF would approve, it's not as if they've got some kind of bias or anything. How about tomorrow we interview Theo and ask which license he recommends? I'm sure it will all be very surprising.
-- Linux user #369862
I release all my code under the WTF license. Do WTF you want with my code. Sometimes I don't even bother putting my name in the code, just let it be completely free.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I almost think the FSF published this only to spark a license-related flamewar on Slashdot... Personally, if I were inclined to do coding and release that code, I would probably go with the GPL; If I am to release my work for free (in both senses), I don't want some asshole taking that code and closing it up later on. But I can definitely see why some people might prefer a slightly less copyleft license, so I'm not going to bother trying to change other peoples viewpoints.
The problem now comes with the fact that our library can be used for web services. People could make changes to our library, use them in their commercial service and not make changes public.
How is this a problem? It seems hard to justify calling something Free software if people can't even use in the way that they want.
sic transit gloria mundi
There are a few reasons why I don't like Creative Commons, one of which is that they encourage people not to read the actual license text (just to read the "human readable summary"). But have a look at some of the restrictions one day. A quotes from Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported:
Bet you didn't know that was in there (no actual bet intended).
Moreover, most of the CC licenses hardly the easiest of licenses to read, too full of legalese. And which license? There are umpteen different ones, depending on which jurisdiction you want to cover. Not to mention the various versions (Flickr only let's you use version 2.0 licenses, rather than the latest 3.0 versions). Too much choice, leads to confusion.
Personally, what I want is a simple, short, easy to understand, weak copyleft (like Lesser GPL) for non-software. Does anyone know of a license like that?
Appended to the end of comments you post. The maximum is 120 characters.
How is this a problem? It seems hard to justify calling something Free software if people can't even use in the way that they want.
Then put your work in the public domain. After all the clauses in the bsd license still limit your 'freedom' in this sense.
The gpl and lgpl are there to protect the freedom of users. In doing so they restrict the freedom of distributors. You can 'use' gpl software in any which way you want, but you cannot distribute the software which violates the license.
Here is my license: None.
I don't give a crap about some ridiculous laws and political nonsense, which some mind numb idiots imagined.
It's all rat shit compared to my creations.
Free software is dead.
Did Netcraft confirm it?
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
After all the clauses in the bsd license still limit your 'freedom' in this sense.
"This sense" refers to "People could make changes to our library, use them in their commercial service and not make changes public.". BSD does not restrict freedom in this sense. The only restrictions are those 2,3 or 4 clauses listed on the license. The GPL tells you want you can do, the BSD tells you want you can't do (which isn't much).
You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.
No documentation? Huh. Well, what about fiction?
I want to publish both a novel and an iPhone RPG under a fan-fiction friendly license. Essentially what I want is to sell stories and games on the App Store, but allow my readers/players to, legally and safely, create Creative Commons, Share Alike, Non-Commercial original stories using the characters and settings I've created.
Note, original. I would rather not see the whole book reproduced on the web, but I would love to see, say, the whole story retold and rewritten from another character's perspective. Or for a prequel, or a side story, or a 'dark and gritty re-imagining', etc.
The intention here is to allow other writers to create original stories using the characters I've created (AKA fan fiction), and to publish such as they wish, safe from legal threats. Yes, safe even from ME, so if I go mad with wealth/power/poverty and decide to sue everyone, those who have created fan fiction using my stories can tell me to suck it and die.
Ideally, if possible, I would also like a canonization clause. If someone writes fan fiction that I quite like, with their approval, I may integrate elements of their story into a sequel, side story, etc. This requires the author's express, written permission and they are more than entitled to say "no thanks".
Is there any licencing model that covers that?
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Phrasings like that are a bit polemic, because for certain titles, it the chops off crispy profits "just because you said so". Disney is of course the famous case, and Star Trek and Dr. Who might be the poster cases right behind them for longevity. On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
I think these copyright proposals need a "small-profit (ad revenue on blogs) derivative works allowed" clause because tons of people just want to mash up stuff but they have no plans for big campaigns. They just want to submit their stuff to some site for street cred and some $100 of ad revenue.
The other clause that would be useful is a "retainer" on certain "grandfather" titles like said Disney and Star Trek and Dr. Who paid by the companies every year to keep the big properties intact, but then all the millions of b-list titles then aren't worth it so they come up for availability. Last I knew the street guys hate using top-hits for anything but parodies anyway and that's already almost okay. When they want to get creative they look to fresher stuff, precisely where the revenue=0 for the big companies to begin with.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Can I use existing GPL code from other author to code a Windows GPL driver ?
Or does the existing driver code from another author need to be LGPL ?
You can use GPL or LGPL software in any way that you want, and the user's rights are protected by the licence. The software is also protected from being made proprietary, so that users will always be free from the danger of a proprietary variant supplanting the original via "embrace, extend, extinguish". Freedom does not mean anarchy, anarchy does not provide freedom.
Yeah, but the BSD licenses are not free 'cause they require you to attribute the original author/s and copy that long text all around the place. If you want real freedom you use the Do What the Fuck you Want License.
To quote:
Appended to the end of comments you post. The maximum is 120 characters.
You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.
You are defining freedom as anarchy. Anarchy does not ensure freedom.
While they had a pretty significant impact 20 to 25 years ago, the FSF is becoming more and more irrelevant each day. GPL'ed software was once considered among the best available, especially given that it was free, but those days are falling further and further behind.
When it comes to licensing, performance, quality, and reliability, the Hurd never got anywhere and Linux plays second fiddle to FreeBSD's kernel. The only advantage that Linux has today is hype.
In terms of compiler frameworks, GCC has become a huge, bloated mess. Now we have LLVM as an alternative, which is released under a very liberal license. In many ways it's far superior to GCC, and can compile complex C++ code in a fraction of the time, while emitting binaries that perform very well.
The userland tools from the various BSDs are much better to use these days than the GNU userland tools. Plus they're available under a truly free license, not the GPL.
Even when it comes to databases, we have PostgreSQL and SQLite under extremely liberal and free licenses. There's just no reason to use MySQL any longer.
We can't deny that the FSF and GNU software was once important, and it did help set the stage for the widespread usage of open source software. Nevertheless, its time has passed, and every sensible person has moved on to alternative software that's better and released under truly-free licenses.
I'll admit, I've never ever read the entire GPL (or one of its variations), simply because they're so incredibly massive that I just know there's some paragraphs just to screw people over. I refuse to use any license I cannot understand within two minutes, including reading time. Everything else is just plain ridiculous and will never be done by any kind of end-user anyway.
Because of that, I try to avoid using any GPL code, no matter what variation it might be, as much as possible in my code. Just the sound of GPL makes me run in circles, then crying myself to sleep in a lonely corner.
There was a similar article from Bruce Perens a few years back: http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/1633200/How-Many-Open-Source-Licenses-Do-You-Need
He describes his reasons differently, but arrives at the same conclusions. For those of you worried about the missing option of the BSD license, he does talk about this a little bit. But only a little bit -- it's quite a short article. Worth a read for an alternate take of the same point of view.
If you want a permissive licence, use the Apache 2.0 licence.
FSF's doc says this.
I concur. Apache serves the purpose that permissive licences can serve, plus it contains patent protections:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
You can 'use' gpl software in any which way you want, but you cannot distribute the software which violates the license.
Ok, so you didn't read the original post or the portion of it I quoted?
There is just no reasonable definition of 'distribute' that includes 'offer a service that uses the software'.
sic transit gloria mundi
Um, I understand all this.
The OP was talking about forcing users to publish internal (ie not re-distributed) changes if they offer a web service that uses the software.
Does no one even read the posts they are replying to anymore?
sic transit gloria mundi
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why don't you simply use both licenses?
I.e. the documentation is CC-BY-SA as a whole, however code examples fall under the GPLv3 license and that license applies to any use of them within actual software products.
This still allows the documentation to be used verbatim, rewritten, reformatted, translated, etc. etc., including the code examples, under CC-BY-SA, while protecting the use of the code under GPLv3's terms.
Mind you, I'm not sure how code examples in documentation could really fall under GPLv3. Say it's a printed work. I'm new to code completely and I read your code example "print 'hello world';". Now it's in my head and instead of jotting that down in my test program, I write "print 'hello gaia';". Oh dear, I just made a derivative work?
I guess once your 'code examples' become non-trivial, as you say, there's more of an argument to be made there. But once it's non-trivial, does it really serve as a 'code example', or just a wholesale publishing of the (GPLv3) code?
Here in the US it is not out of the question to be sued for your public domain program. The BSD license has appropriate disclaimers of liability that protect the developer from many kinds of lawsuits. Because a lawsuit is likely to bankrupt you whether you are guilty or not, this is an important consideration.
Or is your post a complete waste of electrons?
Or do you think that the FSF tells people how to chose the GPL license (redundant) by telling them to chose a license that isn't the GPL?
Maybe that's how YOU'D do it, but you're just nuts.
I must be psychic. I knew exactly which licenses they'd recommend before even reading the article, right up to suggesting the Apache 2.0 license if you couldn't use one of the 3 GPLv3 licenses.
Seriously, the FSF and GNU are the same (heck, all the email links on the FSF page footer are gnu.org email addresses), so of course they're going to suggest their own licenses. Some real news would be advice on choosing a license from some unbiased source.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
The FSF points out that the use of the (original) BSD license is not advisable because of the existence of two version of it: the original with the advertising clause, and the modified without it. Because the modified version is equivalent to the MIT (or X11) license, you should use the MIT license instead to avoid confusion.
I believe everything should be licensed under the WTFPL.
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
The gpl and lgpl are there to protect the freedom of users.
No, they are there to protect freedom of the code. Users and developers are left with less freedom than say, a BSD license.
Having written quite a few assundry Free Software projects myself, I actually came up with my own list through trial-and-error. It goes like this:
Basicaly, there are three levels of needs:
For 1: use the full on GPL. For 2: use the GPL with linking and inclusion exceptions. Expat's license is an example, but many many libraries do this. Typically, this is just GPL with something like the following tacked on:
As a special exception, if other files instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it with other works to produce a work based on this file, this file does not by itself cause the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public License. However the source code for this file must still be made available in accordance with section (3) of the GNU General Public License
For 3: use Public Domain (preferably via CC0).
These are all the licenses a person really ever needs to use for software.
> Implying freedom implies ensuring freedom
Not sure what it is true? There are vast amounts of code that are GPLv2 beyond the Linux kernel.
Other than Linux and BusyBox, can you name some well-known examples? And that can easily be solved with an Apache 2/GPLv2 dual license.
The FSF really wants everyone to upgrade to GPLv3 (which is also incompatible with GPLv2).
Good luck with that if one contributor to your GPLv2-only project disagrees with the changes in the GPLv3 or simply has since become uncontactable.
This is like the Vatican releasing a paper with suggestions on how to pick a religion.
There is just no reasonable definition of 'distribute' that includes 'offer a service that uses the software'.
Say a work of authorship ("the software") implements a service. If the service copies parts of the software into its output, use is distribution. Examples from a web service include any images, HTML templates, or JavaScript programs included in a page. The AGPL is intended for programs that are organized as a quine, where part of the service includes downloading the software as source code. The AGPL uses the exclusive right to prepare derivative works so that any copy in your possession must maintain the quine feature.
It's not that it's not "ok", it's that it's hypocritical. One argument for the GPL is that people must offer back any changes they make. But if you take BSD code, relicense it to GPL and make changes and don't offer those changes back under the original BSD license.... do as I say, not as I do.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Now look here, I came here for a good argument, not just simple contradiction!
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Yes, they did.
Actually that is not totally correct. GPL and LGPL protects the copyright holder by forcing users, who make changes and redistribute the derivative work, to make the changes available to the original copyright holder and public at large. The side effect is that the forced disclosure of source code required by the GPL and LGPL benefits more people since it allows for forks and continuation of development even if the copyright holder no longer supports said code.
It's a subtle but potent distinction. The original copyright holder wanted his/her code to be available to the public and have it to include all improvements made by others. The GPL forces the user to respect the copyright holder's wishes. The problem with websites using modified GPLv2 code is that it doesn't fully protect the copyright holder's intent. The public at large still use the modified code since the difference between running on a remote server and running it on your local machine is inconsequential since you still have access to the results of the code. Because the executable code is not being distributed, the copyright holder and public at large don't have access to the modifications being used by the website. GPLv3 fixes this oversight and strengthens the copyright holder's intent of keeping the source code available.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Essentially what I want is to sell stories and games on the App Store, but allow my readers/players to, legally and safely, create Creative Commons, Share Alike, Non-Commercial original stories using the characters and settings I've created.
My suggestion: Write a universe bible (or an abridged version) and license it CC BY-NC-SA.
Of course the BSD tells you what you can do! If it didn't copyright would prevent most of what the license explicitly allows.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
The GFDL is possibly one of the worst licenses ever. The only reason it has not been justifiably buried at the bottom of a swamp with "MISERABLE FAILURE" burnt into its forehead with a soldering iron is because Wikipedia used to use it. Wikipedia used it because Nupedia used it. Nupedia used it only because the CC licenses hadn't been invented yet.
Literally no one understands how to reuse GFDL content safely, including the FSF. I sent a query about how it applies to aggregates; three months later, the FSF cut'n'pasted their "we have no idea either" response, suggesting you read the license text and consult your attorney. Given Wikimedia's attorney at the time was Mike Godwin and it made his head hurt too, this strongly suggests no-one left at the FSF wants to think about this thing. (They finally clarified this particular issue in GFDL 1.3.)
In the context of mirroring a widely-edited wiki or a page thereof, its terms are difficult to follow, legally unclear and may be technically impossible to comply with in a comparable degree of safety to the GPL or CC by-sa. (Every copy must have the full 23 kilobytes of licence text attached, about seven pages of single-spaced 12 point. This is not so good for single articles or photographs, and Internet video is likely impossible to reproduce under the GFDL in legal safety. This is, of course, the easiest term of the GFDL to obey. CC by-sa allows the license to be named by reference.) And don't even ask about images.
Before Wikimedia went Creative Commons, tedious nerds would frequently claim that any given reuser of Wikipedia content was technically violating the GFDL no matter what shrubberies they obtained (thus putting off quite a lot of reusers). The Debian project classes it as a "non-free" license because its terms are unclear and onerous in practice.
Use CC by-sa, CC-by or Public Domain, like everyone else in the whole goddamn free content world does. Don't use GFDL for the same reason you don't use shitty home-rolled software licenses that may be technically free/open but are deliberately incompatible with everything.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Interestingly, another response pointed out a blog post from Bruce Perens, where he (independenly) came up with the exact same taxonomy I listed above.
We really only differed in the licenses we picked for the three types of projects. We both picked GPL for our most tied down license. For what he called "gift code", he (like the FSF) picked the Apache license, where I use Public Domain (CC0). From a legal liability standpoint, I'm willing to admit that he and the FSF have a good point on that one. I'm hardly someone worth suing, but they certianly are, and probably need the extra protection.
For the intermediate level, he picked LGPL, whereas I use GPL with exceptions. On this one, I'm pretty sure Bruce has it wrong. LGPL works OK for this purpose if your library is written in C, with no macros in its client header files. However, if your library has client-included macros, or is written in a language that supports generic programming (eg: C++ templates or Ada generics), then LGPL is no different that GPL. With either, some of the facility's code gets "included" in the client code, rendering the whole program LGPL. This is why the FSF version of the Ada compiler uses GPL with exceptions instead of LGPL. Bruce, if you are reading this, I'm curious about your opinon on it.
the BSD tells you want you can't do (which isn't much).
It's still a restriction, and so therefore, not 'free' if we are going to be pedantic like you want to be.
Complete freedom (public domain and lesser extent bsd) gives the ability to cut off freedom from others.
The gpl is seen as the greater benefit for everyone, allowing all to be free to do what they wish with the code except deny the same freedom to others.
That you cannot deny the freedom to tinker from others is itself a restriction yes, but ensures those you distribute to to also do whatever else they like besides that.
The only developers that it is a problem for are those that wish to be leeches and not share back, and I imagine most lgpl projects are glad that commercial projects can be created from their libraries. With any fixes or new features returned for all who use the library to enjoy, instead of being locked out.
Basically, do you want to give people freedom to do anything include lock users in, or do you want to give them freedom for everything _except_ that?
You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.
If we go black and white with your logic anything at all besides public domain isn't 'free' which is why I said go ahead and put things in the public domain.
Sure, people might make some awesome things from it that has functionality that you would like, but oh look they kept it all proprietary and you now have to pay for what is mostly your own code, too bad. This is why people choose to restrict the freedom to restrict others freedom to an extent, quid pro quo and all that.
Phrasings like that are a bit polemic, because for certain titles, it the chops off crispy profits "just because you said so". Disney is of course the famous case, and Star Trek and Dr. Who might be the poster cases right behind them for longevity. On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
I see no issue with the original series of star trek going out of copyright, same with all the movies up till '96. The new star trek movie would of course still have another decade left of copyright and so profits can still be sought for it. The copyrights would be 15 years from publication so everything new still has 15 years to make a profit.
On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
Yes, lets tax what has by this time become part of our culture, all hail the culture tax overlords. :P People should be compensated if people like their work, and if people do like their work, there is a pretty damn high likelihood they can make some money off it in 15 years. It is better for all of us if our culture in general is not limited by eternal gatekeepers always making us pay again and again.
The other clause that would be useful is a "retainer" on certain "grandfather" titles like said Disney and Star Trek and Dr. Who paid by the companies every year to keep the big properties intact
There is no need for this trademark law would ensure only the original companies could come out with things of the same name so long as said companies remain in business. Copyright would allow 15 years for new works to make a profit, and then everyone can copy at their leisure after that. Mickey mouse can live even if copyright were shorter, but if it were shorter we could legally copy steamboat willy. yes we could make derivative works but trademark law would mean we would have to rename things somewhat.
Thanks for replying. As you call them, "culture tax overlords", like the money they have been making and are already thrashing like wounded dinosaurs. In their death throes they are getting more favorable laws than ever before.
So when you "see no issue" with proposing a law that releases works faster than even the 28 year period, you are implicitly declaring a fight with those dead dinos and their profits. On the other hand, I went looking for where it turns into a long tail such that the materials are "unsellable" so that the dinos can keep the scraps of the few signature pieces that keep them fed, while new artists get the treasure trove of otherwise buried materials that are stuck in vaults. Check out Star Trek Phase 2 for one of the best examples of how do the licensing for hot button "IP properties".
Suppose the term is 56 years, which is the original 28 plus one renewal at 28. So in the proposal meeting you say "Sure, you can still have Star Trek. We want Cordwainer Smith".
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I've been working on a couple of android apps and want to make the code available for everyone. I've never worked on open source projects before, but it seems (from RTFA) that having a license could protect me more than not having one. Is that true? It seems scary writing software since it seems I'm reading about lawsuits daily.
56 years is far too shifted in favour of the media companies.
Remember the purpose of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," when it is 15 years when someone turns 30 they can create a lovely remix of an old song they heard when they were 15 suited to a newer audience. 56 years means I can create derivative works from my youth on my death bed. This is far too long.
So when you "see no issue" with proposing a law that releases works faster than even the 28 year period, you are implicitly declaring a fight with those dead dinos and their profits.
Yes, but this is the only way to effectively shift copyright back to promoting the useful arts. In it's present state the large media companies hold all the cards and effectively limit peoples creativity with their own culture. This is what needs to change, the only way it can change is to fight them. Every individual that realizes this and is willing to do a small part contributes.
So the FSF have taken a different definition of "user" than you.