Sadly, RMS's GPLv4 series would be even more restrictive. I have read the GNU website, and they make this clear.
There's no GPLv4, but maybe you're predicting.
They also hate FreeBSD as ports allow you to obtain software under "open-source but nonfree" licenses like the Artistic License. They don't want you to be in control of your own computing, they want to be in control of your own computing. If you have read all of gnu.org you realize that RMS goes so far into free-software extremism that he loops back into the world of proprietary software
FSF likes permissive licenses, because it allows GPL to eat them up. Even though they can use BSD licenses, they don't like it as much, because it requires them to do minimal preservation work of license terms to use it. They like MIT, because they can use it and don't have to acknowledge it at all.
While I bought the arguments in the beginning, they fundamentally didn't make sense. It made me wonder how permissive licensing could exist, when they allowed another license to eat them up. Then, it seemed like a paradox between permissive and GPL. In between is better. Their terms still don't make sense, the rationale for what they want to do, and how it's used makes sense, but that doesn't make sense to the terms of the wording of GPL terms. They're justifications made to be able to use other libraries, that it even restricts on LGPL. I had to question it, and read the explanation, and make it work, and say ok, well, it's the only option. When getting around the rationale, it's not even close to the best way to do it.
LGPL2.1 is ok, except it also allows GPL to absorb it. LGPL also limits protections for it, as the licensing terms can't be updated to have a patent retaliation clause. It's just there for compatibility with everything, including both major GPL versions.
Depending on his motives. If they're like that, then it's time to displace the GPL, as can be done, as there's more libraries under licenses under Apache, MPL and enough CDDL, while they can use LGPL. There's more libraries to gain from, than to lose. Eventually, they'll either bend to having a version which allows it to use libraries dynamically linked, so that GPL doesn't have to force BSD, ISCL, Apache, even LGPL to dual license. So it doesn't make the authors of MPL code have to dual license as well. To have a library which is allowed use by both major versions of GPL and everything else, you'd have to use permissive licenses which don't have patent clauses, or dual license with LGPL2.1 and Apache 2.0.
I'm not sure about Artistic License, but licenses do need to have clear terms, if that was the case. Artistic License 2.0 is accepted. FSF recommended that Artistic License 1 be dual licensed, which doesn't seem like going against their wishes, however making anything dual license either is good for clarity, or it causes an impediment, depending on the terms of that license.
I just think it was killed because the Linux world is collectively idiotic, and yet they are at the helm of everything open-source.
Arch Linux does a few things right. Without them, we wouldn't have BSD like programs like sxhkd and be able to use their documentation for programs. Arch is almost like the Linux which does things the BSD way. They use gmake, Linux documentation software, and Bash, but that's their being Linux. I heard of Alpine Linux too.
If people split the OSS community, MICROSOFT WINS.
When it was Bill Gates against Linus, Microsoft was this way. Microsoft actually has a good Opensource license. They have another open license, which isn't opensource. Also, Microsoft put DOS under MIT license. Maybe they don't see opensource as a threat to their business model now.
(I'm interested in trying it but Xorg still works fine)
