But it doesn't. In the AGPL case it can easily call out to another proprietary web service or a different process just like the way GPL software can communicate with a proprietary process which creates a non-free workflow.

That was what spurred this discussion:

If Apple were to install OSX on the iPad family of devices, that would indeed change the game again.

Hence my response.

The iPad 2 was released in mid-March 2011, it is now end of March 2015. How are you calculating that to be nearly seven years? It's only just hit 4 years.

If by "they" you mean the OEMs (not Microsoft) and you have an example of an OEM who has actually done that then yes perhaps you may have a point. But if your hardware "of choice" doesn't have the ability to choose what operating system you put on it then obviously you chose wrong.

Nobody except FSF devotees considers something offered "free" to mean anything other than free of charge. If you interpret something offered "free" to mean free of restriction with an onus on the provider to also provide you the instructions and material associated to re-create a modified version of it then you're an idiot.

There are some but few of industry quality so the defacto in the industry for the most part is Renderman.

Blender? How is Blender in any way an alternative or competitor to Renderman?

Of course it is, that's why it's for non-commercial use. It's so you can learn a professional tool without having to pay for it when you aren't going to use it to make any money.

Yeah because nobody in the CG industry except Pixar uses Renderman right?

Why are you comparing Blender and Renderman? It's apples and oranges, they aren't even the same kind of tool!

Renderman is now free of charge for non-commercial use, i.e. for evaluating it, creating your showreel or learning it so that when you move into the commercial space you are familiar with the industry tools. If these terms and limitations confuse you or upset you then just ignore this announcement and continue using something like POVRay or BMRT.

If you want privacy then don't put your information on the public web.

So just drop it.

Well what is "running Linux in the common sense"? If what you're saying is that GNU/Linux has a lot more GNU in it than non-GNU/Linux then that's obviously pretty redundant and makes no point at all.

Well that's not a personal computing sense, it isn't your computer but on a smartphone or a tablet it absolutely is. So which of the following is "running Linux in the common sense" and why: Ubuntu, Ubuntu Phone, Maemo, ChromeOS, Android?

That's really the part that hasn't taken off though. Even Linux - Free Software's biggest claim to fame - is about open source and code sharing rather than the ethics and morals of the FSF.

This is something they knew, GCC could have easily had a license term (just like the GPL has with library linkage) that the input to it must be GPL-compatible and as such could only be used for Free Software but they didn't because people are more interested in getting things done than aligning with the FSF's philosophical point of view. This gives developers who use GCC the ability to not give the Free Software freedoms to other people and that is exactly the thing the FSF's restrictive licenses exist to prevent.

Not really, this is where the distinction is important. If you run GNU/Linux then maybe, but if you run another Linux - like Android for example - you may find there is very little GNU in there.

However Linux isn't about Free Software and it doesn't assign copyrights to the FSF (so it will forever be GPLv2) so even though RMS is all upset about Tivoization it will continue to exist for Linux because Linus disagrees with RMS and sees Tivoization as a good thing because the philosophy of Linux is about sharing of code, not "freedom".

The world changed, we got more embedded systems and highspeed broadband which allowed for SaaS, the FSF copyright assignment meant these could be addressed with updated licenses to cater for changes to the technology sector but Linux not being about Free Software meant not handing the keys to the FSF and thus the quickest path compromise of using Linux has meant there is no real Free Software kernel.

No, that assertion demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between Freeware and Free Software. Without the GPL and Copyright I could take open source code, create a modification to it and distribute just the binary without the source code. Sure the lack of copyright would mean that people could redistribute that binary free of charge and restriction but there would be nothing to force me to release the source code modifications along with it. And that is one of the key elements of the GPL, in fact it is what differentiates it as a restrictive license from permissive licenses like BSD, MIT or Apache.

When do you ever do that?