And no I'm not RMS
no need to stipulate that.
Or alternatively, BSD emphasizes freedom for everybody. GPL emphasizes freedom for end-users by attempting to ensure that any derivative works are also free. The real world effect of course is that people writing commercial software still write the same commercial software, but can't use anything involving GPL in those products. So, even if there's a commonly used tool that does most of the job, they have to reinvent the wheel which means that they waste more time doing that then adding value to customer (or have to charge the customer more to cover the increased development time).
The users have exactly the same freedoms as before PLUS the ability to buy a product that might better serve their needs. The end-users are still just as free to use the original software as they were before.
Your point about commercial software developers benefitting from BSD by building closed source software based on open source software is not convincing to me. If there were no GPL at all, and all open sourced software would be BSD licensed, how much open source software would there be for a commercial developer to benefit from in the first place? Not much I fear, if we were all commercial developers like that.
The GPL is all or nothing, and the GPL community often gets absolutely nothing by insisting on all.
I'm not so sure about that. The Linux kernel (GPL-licensed) for example, is much more widespread than the OpenBSD kernel (BSD-licensed). I think an important reason why Linux is a success is that it receives contributions from many sides, including commercial enterprises. It is not at all self-evident that this would have been the case if Linux would have been BSD-licensed.
As so many of us, I've been unsatisfied with recent developments in linux desktop environments. Since the advent of compositing, I've moved away from minimalist window managers, to enjoy window scaling/expo and similar improvements in desktop usability. I consider myself open to progress, in the sense that I've tried both unity and the gnome shell. But these last two have never gotten "out of my way", as they proclaim to do, and attempts to configure things to work the way I want have never been completely satisfying either. My most persistent frustrations have been with window switching and workspace management.
I've just given cinnamon 1.6 a try, and I must say that out of the box, it already fits my needs much better than both unity and gnome shell. I especially like the fact that you can name your workspaces, and dynamically expand them at the same time. Window switching without popups and without flicker also works, even if it's not blazingly fast. Lastly, configuration of behavior and layout (both by menu settings and by editing the theme's css) is more straightforward than I dared to hope.
Long story short: Cinnamon is well worth a try if you're lost in the crack between old and new style destkop environments.
Actually, we don't need to buy credits for carbon neutrality, just raising the prices will do the trick:
Let's call the carbon load associated with Microsoft activies X, and the price of a Windows license P. Furthermore, Q is the the money the average Windows user earns, after subtracting P. Finally we will denote by Y the total carbon load associated with the goods he/she buys at the value of Q, on average. If we increase the price of a Windows license by 100*((C*X/(Y*P)-1)%, the user will have less money to spend (and subsequently incur less carbon overhead), to extent that Microsoft carbon footprint is neutralized.