Obviously, I hate to be negative (always a lie), but mentioning GNU software under the title of open source really isn't helpful.
I see the author does call it free software, but it wouldn't hurt to make it clear there is a big difference open source and free software.
Open source means you have the option of delivering source to the binary's recipient. Experience tells me that a very low % of developers take this option when the software as a whole that they deliver is not open source or free software. This means, as you look from the start of the software food chain (the lowest level libraries) to the top, the rate of passing on of source code drops very quickly.
If the GNU toolset/libraries had not been GPL, I very much doubt the Linux kernel would have been GPL and I very much doubt you'd have an operating system that's as robust and heavily used as GNU/Linux.
Normally, I'd let it pass, but when an article talks about ethics of "open source", I think the distinction needs to be made.
In this speech on the history of Linux from 2001 [1], Linus makes it clear that he views the viral nature of the GPL to be a crucial component of Linux's success. He likens it to allowing evolution to take place. I'm not sure when this viewpoint took hold for him, but it would suggest that he likes the most fundamental part of the license (though he disagrees with much of the politics).
Open source is meant to be a synonym for free software that doesn't explicitly mention the "freedom" part of it. Open source is meant to be a new name for free software that doesn't scare businesses away. The vast majority of software vetted as open source by OSI is also considered free software by the FSF.
Personally, the emphasis on freedom matters to me. If some business is scared away by freedom, I'll pass up on that business and take the freedom instead.
Free Software is not synonymous with GPL. GPL is a specific kind of free software with copyleft provisions which guarantee that users (can) get the source. The post you're responding to seems to argue not just for the role of free software, but for that of GPL specifically.
I see the author does call it free software, but it wouldn't hurt to make it clear there is a big difference open source and free software.
Open source means you have the option of delivering source to the binary's recipient. Experience tells me that a very low % of developers take this option when the software as a whole that they deliver is not open source or free software. This means, as you look from the start of the software food chain (the lowest level libraries) to the top, the rate of passing on of source code drops very quickly.
If the GNU toolset/libraries had not been GPL, I very much doubt the Linux kernel would have been GPL and I very much doubt you'd have an operating system that's as robust and heavily used as GNU/Linux.
Normally, I'd let it pass, but when an article talks about ethics of "open source", I think the distinction needs to be made.