Re: "RMS isn't opposed to money or profits or charging for sorftware -"
Google shows us otherwise daily. As far as I know, Chromium meets the definition Stallman established for free software, yet it is developed by Google according to the interests of Google, and it is serving Google perfectly well, despite being free software. If Google doesn't want a certain change in Chromium, that change does not appear, and if Google wants something, Google gets it. Anyone can see, use, compile, or change the code for anything they want, but that doesn't mean Google has to listen when you criticize their design decisions or when you try to submit code.
If you don't like how Google is developing Chromium, you're free to fork it and make your own project. That's the central feature of free software, not some hazy idea that it is being developed in any one person's view of the public interest. Mozilla makes this claim, but there is no universal public interest. What benefits one may well harm another, or many others.
Now, it's true that Chrome itself is not a commercial product, but you can't really claim that it does not serve Google's financial interests just the same. They could, if they chose, sell Chrome, though it's been years since there was a concept of browsers being something you buy. This might raise the impetus for those looking to fork Chromium, or simply to repackage it as a free product, but that has already been done by many organizations, yet people still clamor to have the "real" Chrome, the one that spies on you and phones home to Google all the time, instead of the alternatives that do not. If browsers were still things we paid for, they could sell Chrome... they already are selling it for the low, low cost of your personal data, and people choose that instead of the truly free versions that are almost exactly the same thing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
