"The Free Software Community now has an ethical alternative to ad networks that promote proprietary software..."

Ad Bard was a breath of fresh air in the already crowded advertising networks arena lead by behemoths like Google Adsense. In 2009 when Ad Bard network first came into existence, FSF proudly proclaimed, "The Free Software Community now has an ethical alternative to ad networks that promote proprietary software." Ad Bard was a truly promising venture.

"...The free software movement is primarily concerned with building and defending software freedom—the freedom to run, share, and modify published computer software. This is an ethical consideration borne out of considering how we ought to treat one another using computers and software [...] Calling attention to the name "GNU" helps draw attention to the cause of freedom and cooperation..."

“Open Source” advocate: «...I associate much more with the "Open Source" (also as Richard defines it) camp, and am open to the existence and use of proprietary software...» --

Jack Wallen comments on the debate that’s broken out about the use of proprietary “blobs” in the “free” Linux kernel. How much “free” deserves the seal of approval from the Free Software Foundation? Does the expectation of 100-percent free software make sense?

What could make the Free Software Foundation (FSF), proprietary software companies, and at least one venture capitalist into allies?

The End Software Patents (ESP) coalition, a new organization poised to swing into action next month under the leadership of Ben Klemens.

"..RMS’s other mission here is to promote the Free Software Movement. The creator of the GPL...is at pains to correct misunderstandings of what the term free software means and to draw a distinction between it and the open source movement.

"Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that non-free software is a suboptimal solution.

The methodologies of Open Source are not owned or guided by any one person. The closest thing we have are the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and support of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The OSI certifies what qualifies as an open source license.