By using BSD over GPL you're choosing to make it easy for many people to use your code, even if that use eventually may support closed-source lock-in. Since most developers dabble in open source mostly as a prestige project, that's a reasonable choice - you're not doing it to prevent software monopolies or lock in, are you? So no, you don't care about freedom, exactly as RMS says. Most people are probably doing it for recognition by their peers and because they're interested in solving the problem at hand, and compromising on those two points for a slim chance that you might contribute to a more pervasively free software future sounds like a risky bet.
None of the two minor projects I wrote and support use (L)GPL.
This is complete nonsense. Clang is replacing GCC in many BSD-licensed projects exactly because they feel it is more free than GCC. You don't have to agree that they are right, but saying they aren't talking about it is obnoxious and false.
Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It's not impossible but much more complex than if you just have a EULA.
That said if you remove that difficulty you neuter the GPL and weaken the point of software freedom.
I get why RMS pisses people off. He doesn't keep arguing for using the GPL to be an asshole, but because he thinks software users are more important than software developers. Perhaps most developers feel differently?
It seems like you accidentally a word somewhere in here, but know that you can charge ANY price you want for compiled software distributed under the terms of the GPL. Your only requirement is to -upon request from one to whom you have distributed your software- provide the source code for your software to that person.
Fulfilling the request with patches against other code is acceptable. Requiring a snail-mailed request is acceptable. Charging your actual direct costs for fulfilling the request is acceptable.
Selling GPL'd software isn't more complicated than selling non-GPL'd software.
My point was it complicates the business model of selling software artifacts since the GPL does not prevent downstream dissemination of the source so long as the GPL is not violated. So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software.
I suppose one might argue the GPL holds hostage a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers. But well that's really the point.
And I think that's what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source.
If I've correctly characterized your statement, I can't agree with it.
RMS was originally motivated by his sudden inability to get access to the code for the driver for their computer lab's fancy laser printer to fix an embarrassingly bad bug that was wasting a bunch of other people's time. Many people prefer open source software because the guaranteed availability of source code helps to keep software that BigCos would no longer maintain (for whatever reason) alive, or dramatically improve software that companies can't be arsed to get right. [0]
> So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software.
Eh? AFAICT, the model still stands.
If you've written everything in house, dual-license it. If you've not, and if you're writing software for BigCos, [1] put a clause in your support contract that stipulates that for the next X years, $CLIENT will upgrade to $LATEST_VERSION after $REASONABLE_TIME_PERIOD and will not use older versions, or else suffer termination of the support contract and monetary penalties.
I mean, lots of people pay for (and keep upgrading) RHEL rather than use Centos or Scientific Linux.
[0] Ferinstance, DD-WRT and OpenWRT have been really, really good for the state of home WiFi router security.
[1] Which -frankly- is the only place I would expect to find such a license.