> FSF tactics for producing and promoting free/libre do not.
What is your criteria for judgement here? The FSF GPL licenses, in reality have worked quite well, if the criteria is longevity, high usage, popularity, utility and maintained.
If your only criteria is "Well, they're only #2", then sure, by that criteria they did not "work".
Just look at LLVM and GCC, the central subject here. GCC is hanging on while entire ecosystems build on top of LLVM, primarily for technical reasons. What started off as insularity lead to technical weakness. Technical weakness will end in obscurity. What is free after that?
The crossover will more likely be driven by silicon trends providing an opportunity for LLVM's velocity to translate to enough competitive advantage for casual users to want LLVM. Once that happens, you will see some Linux distributions switch over. Hard liners will fork and do what they do, but asking people to use a compiler that gives them a worse result or is harder to work with isn't going to hold the gates.
Linus prefers LLVM for development.
People need to get out of the 90s and look at some data.
Right. That could happen in the future, but your assertion was that it had already happened, and you used that assertion as support for why the GPL already resulted in lower use.
I can't see the future, but I can tell you without a doubt that, as things stand right now, the GPL has been a runaway success for users' rights.
Will that change in the future? Who knows? But that wasn't your claim nor my counterclaim.
