Eich's beliefs mean nothing
No, but his actions of agression, based on those beliefs, towards people who didn't do him any harm, kind of speak against his ability to lead.
And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant.
Good, do that, but remember that you are also just an employee and can get the boot just as well for firing people just because they don't like you or agree with you. If you can't take criticism, you will be either fired or left to rule over cowards.
Users can't fix bug. Users can't make software do what they want it to do. There's a tiny percentage of users who happen to be software developers and who could
There is a clear contradiction in your statement. I hope you can see it.
May I remind you that millions of people around the world use proprietary software that WAS modified by other users, without even having the source code, to remove artificial restrictions (you have to keep your DVD in the drive when you want to run your software, etc). So, I would think that more useful stuff could be done if that "tiny percentage" had the source code, and the rest of the users would benefit. A whole software ecosystem was built from scratch by that "tiny percentage" (kernels, system software, applications in FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, Haiku, etc) and you say that you know these people would not want the source?
And I want to point out, that I was just stating that RMS has nothing against "for-profit". Did your statement show that he has? No, so why are you arguing?
If you would ever let your software be used by for-profit interests, you are not part of the community he is speaking of.
Let me fix that:
"If you would ever let your software be used to build software that imposes limits on its users, you are not part of the community he is speaking of."
When I say limits, I mean on what machine or OS they can run it, their ability to fix bugs or make it do what they want it to do, their ability to share their modifications that they made with others, etc.
Because it makes everyone's life better
What if it doesn't? What if this BSD licensed code is used by company X to build a piece of proprietary software, and that software is sold to a bunch of users, it does not work as they want it to work (maybe bugs, maybe poor design), and causes a lot of pain and frustration to these users who can't get anyone to fix the software, except company X and company X finds that it's not in the interest of their shareholders to fix those issues.
in the US, journalists may use **anonymous sources**
The whole point of the issue is that anonymity is impossible in the surveillance state. The Government does not need to arrest journalists to get to their sources. It has set in place a system that works around the "process that every collage journalism major learns".
Glenn Greenwald is using Snowden to further his career...the way he's shopping Snowden interviews around proves it.
Way to go, attacking the person with uninformed opinions. It was Snowden's choice to disclose the information without hiding behind anonymity, and I see a number of practical and moral reasons for that, one being exactly that the Government would have known anyway.
Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."