The Free Software Foundation (FSF) really gets tiring with its anti-Microsoft bombast and adolescent protests, such as windows7sins.org . If you were in central Boston on Wednesday, and you didn't prefer riding the Swan Boats or the Duck Boats - or touring the Freedom Trail - some FSF nuts were planning to burn Windows 7 in effigy or some such stunt. Its attacks are not simply aimed at Microsoft, but at the entire enterprise software development and distribution mechanism. The FSF really doesn't have much chance of succeeding in its plan to free software (from what is always unclear), but someone probably said the same thing about other statist and communistic movements during history.Now to be clear -- I have no problem with the FSF burning books, CDs or DVDs or whatever they wanted to do on Boston Common, especially in the cradle of U.S. liberty. It's not like it was the burning of the library at Alexandria. But I do watch the media coverage of such drivel because it almost always leads to statements in the technical and business media such as (paraphrasing in some cases): "The open source software movement is involved in this campaign." The open source movement in general and the Open Source Initiative were set up in the late 1990s as a counterpoint to the FSF and pretty much in protest to its nutty behavior. (Again I do defend the FSF's right to be nutty as long as it does not trash irreplaceable things as has happened in some book burnings). And, of course, open source software itself conceptually has been around for 50 years and neither the FSF nor the Open Source Initiative really has any ownership of the idea; they are just front groups."The GNU General Public License (GPL) is the most popular open source license." That is probably true in terms of projects using the license, but unlikely in terms of installed software in production where the Apache license probably predominates."Microsoft asserts legal control over its users through a combination of copyrights, contracts, and patents. Microsoft uses this power to abuse computer users." Actually Microsoft asserts legal control over its intellectual property (IP) and against those that abuse that IP. As a Microsoft user, at least in the United States, I am free to use any software I want. I tend to use Microsoft products over open source software because it is more friendly to the visually impaired, which I am, and because it is less expensive. But I also use a lot of open source software and have followed the movement and its predecessors in my research for 40 years."Software and computers will always have problems, but by using free software, users and their communities are empowered to fix problems for themselves and each other." Similarly I can build my own car or ham radio or (name many similar hobbyist groups) and get together with people that do similar things and enjoy myself. But I don't want to bet my business on someone's hobby; almost any useful software licensed via open source terms and conditions is supported for a fee just as with any other software license arrangement. In fact, that is permitted by the FSF. Free to the FSF does not mean at no cost. In addition, running a business or organization and using enterprise software where it can contribute to competitive disadvantage is more important than worrying about a business expense that averages 1 percent or less of your business' or organization's expense structure."With windows7sins.org, we hope to make businesses and computer users aware of the growing dangers of proprietary software from both Microsoft and other companies such as Apple and Adobe." But not IBM, Oracle, EMC, SAP, etc. which also license billions of dollars of software not licensed via open source terms and conditions? These enterprise software suppliers are never mentioned in FSF material. My guess is that the latter companies have paid tribute' to the FSF activists. Coercing money from vendors is the whole purpose of being for organizations such as FSF and their front groups. This is not just an enterprise-software phenomenon, but is right out of the worldwide front-group playbook. But like I said, at least in the United States, "it's a free country."