The name "Free Software" is bad. The explanation is confusing. The idea that you can have a class of software that is Free but not GPL is confusing, and I'm not sure what he means unless he is just saying you can use other copyleft licenses.
The obvious practical reality in our society driven by money is that if your product must include its source code then you may have some big problems making money or maintaining whatever competitive edge you had.
Whatever your license says or the law says, if the source code is available its a good chance some people are going to copy your software and distribute it for less.
Also, as far as old-school copyleft components (such as GPL, not LGPL), if including the component in my software means that I have to distribute the full source of my application, that means that I go from having a product that is only available by purchase to a product that someone can compile on their computer for free.
The reality is that we live in a monetary society and people aren't always honest. And insisting that source code be distributed with proprietary software is not compatible with business.
Now, I believe that the current form of the structural aspects of society related to business and the monetary system are ultimately incompatible with the truthful holistic application of science (technology) and with ethics in general. We need to fix that. Until we do, copyleft isn't practical for many products.
I once wrote Richard Stallman suggesting what I thought was a much more helpful name, keeping all the good connotations but with less of the ambiguity:
The obvious practical reality in our society driven by money is that if your product must include its source code then you may have some big problems making money or maintaining whatever competitive edge you had.
Whatever your license says or the law says, if the source code is available its a good chance some people are going to copy your software and distribute it for less.
Also, as far as old-school copyleft components (such as GPL, not LGPL), if including the component in my software means that I have to distribute the full source of my application, that means that I go from having a product that is only available by purchase to a product that someone can compile on their computer for free.
The reality is that we live in a monetary society and people aren't always honest. And insisting that source code be distributed with proprietary software is not compatible with business.
Now, I believe that the current form of the structural aspects of society related to business and the monetary system are ultimately incompatible with the truthful holistic application of science (technology) and with ethics in general. We need to fix that. Until we do, copyleft isn't practical for many products.