The FSF represents Free Software only, and encourages people to use the GPL.
I think that is more accurate than my comment. I would agree. I'll reevaluate the issue, as I always have something to learn, but I still think my original comment about Android being open, but not free (as in hackable without jailbreaking) is still true. It IS open, but it is not modifiable. Thanks again.
Free vs Open Source
Yes, you are trying to start a license debate / war.
Really? What side am I on? I clearly stated "I am not saying, in this post, that one licence is better than the other . .
The Free Software Foundation regards the Apache license as a Free Software license compatible with version 3 of the GPL. It is free and open. Free does not mean copyleft - copyleft means copyleft. Free (in the FSF sense), means granting the person receiving the code the four freedoms that the FSF outlines, and the Apache license does, indeed, provide these freedoms.
You are confusing FSF with OSI. RMS often tries to be clear that he represents Free software, and NOT open source. Different camp. FSF represents Free software and the GPL only. OSI represents open source, of which GPL is one license in the group. GNU code is only under GPL/LGPL. They do mention compatibility, because they understand they are part of a bigger world.
In a nutshell, Apache, among other noncopyleft licenses, allows for freedom. Copyleft licenses protect freedom. Which is better, obviously depends upon your beliefs and goals, but that is the fundamental difference. Further argument/debate/war is like saying apples taste better than oranges. Personal preference.
I don't blame you for confusing the issue, as it is a common thing. Marketing people are intentionally trying to mess the words up, and are doing a good job. It is open, but you have to jailbreak it first. Well, that may be true, but it certainly violates the connotation, even if it follows the denotation. That was my point above.
In my experience, the addicts have issues regardless of which drug they happen to be using. I've never seen an addict who was a normal contributing member of society before they became an addict.
I have, and so have you. Ever know of a recovering alcoholic? I know quite a few. I am a physician. I frequently see people hooked on drugs, going down the drain, getting off the drugs, and being perfectly fine in a good job afterwards. When I see them, they tell me up front never to prescribe narcotics to them, because they will get hooked, and don't want to go there again.
If only we humans could say the same for our poop, which really doesn't do much more than just sit there.
As humans, aren't we a little too hard on ourselves? First, we criticize ourselves for cutting down trees. Then, we criticize ourselves for global warming. Now, we criticize ourselves because our poops suck? Sheesh. When will it end?
"Truth never comes into the world but like a bastard, to the ignominy of him that brought her birth." -- Milton