>Being dogmatic and pure about the license of every piece of software you use might win internet points but it’s not going to actually get the job done.
Sure. But I wouldn't go around calling myself an "open source advocate" while supporting some of the worst.
Why does it have to be a zero sum game? Frankly, that’s the sort of gate-keeping that keeps people away from trying or adopting OSS.
Someone can support and advocate for a software development model and for the freedoms and opportunities that can allow for without having to go all-in and ensure that every piece of software they buy, use, or support follows that same model.
A really great way discourage people from advocating for OSS is to harangue them for daring to use Photoshop in lieu of Gimp.
Obviously it’s really convenient and rewarding when best-in class products are also OSS, but that’s not the world we live in.
It strikes me as a really shitty message to say that the only way you can advocate or support something is to go all-in on the model. If the goal is to get more people using and adopting and developing with open tools, yelling at them for not being the pinnacle of “purity” sure seems like a strange way to do it.
If someone calls themselves a “free software advocate,” I’ll agree that that implies a much stronger dogma to a specific set of licenses — but that’s an ideological movement that is materially different from OSS.
A list of my open source contributions include co-founding Linuxserver.io, the Self-Hosted podcast, blogging extensively about open source software (blog.ktz.me) and work for Red Hat. I say this not to be 'look at me' but to show that I try to put my money where my mouth is. I wonder what the other commenters have contributed.
Sure. But I wouldn't go around calling myself an "open source advocate" while supporting some of the worst.