By definition, free and open source software (FOSS) is opposed to proprietary companies. But, as Jim Zemlin and Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols have pointed out recently, the FOSS community does not regard all proprietary companies with equal disdain.

In-fighting within the open source community needs to stop or risk further alienating companies, attendees at the Cape IT Initiative's (CITI) FOSS event heard last week.

There are more and more companies adopting open source solutions in favor of proprietary software due to the cost savings they can reap, although perhaps not enough. Today, I noticed this release from IBM about Italian food company Gruppo Amadori rolling out Red Hat Enterprise Linux with desktops running IBM software, much of which is free, and some of which has open source roots.

Okay so I think we can all agree that proprietary software shouldn't be promoted by the FOSS community. It also seems to be acceptable to promote the use of free software applications on proprietary OSes. So why is there a problem with promoting the use of proprietary applications on free OSes?

For years Microsoft has been spreading lies and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) about Linux in the hopes that they can keep Linux from being widely adopted. Their latest round of lies is the anti-linux propaganda used in training some Best Buy and Staples employees. My opinion is that the reason Microsoft uses these tactics is because their software is so bad that it cannot stand on its own merits.

Who says that Microsoft and free software developers are enemies?

A lot of companies that are connected to Microsoft increase fear of Free software for security and liability

"...Free software does not have the ability to cause catastrophic damage to the software industry. Proprietary software that spies on and restricts the freedoms of users will be eliminated, but such a change is for the better. More jobs will be created for programmers by companies who want specific changes made to their software.

RMS: «The EFF is fighting an attempt to twist copyright law to give the software developer total power over execution of the program. Victory in this case will not eliminate the practice of restricting how users run proprietary programs. It will only limit the developers to using contracts as the means. This will not make users free.