I was specifically replying to the GP, who commented about concerns of "locking yourself into an ecosystem that has a monopoly on hosting as a service". I wanted to know why that specific concern is an issue for GP, in the context of software like Liquibase which isn't even hosted in the first place. Your reply does not address that in any way.
> That license restricts what you can do with the software due to a business interest of the author.
Yes, it restricts you from offering a competing hosted service. Do you offer a competing hosted service to Liquibase using Liquibase's source code? Is this something you ever would conceivably do? If not, how does this restriction affect your life in any way?
> I wanted to know why that specific concern is an issue for GP
That's exactly what my comment is addressing! People advocating for Free Software don't usually advocate that _only_ the software they use should be free; they advocate for the freedom of all users.
> I never claimed it was Free Software.
You did not, indeed. Sorry if my wording gave the impression I was trying to put claims in your post. That phrase is an answer to this question from you:
> Why do you object to FSL for this specific type of software
We object to it because it makes the software proprietary rather than free.
OK, so you care about freedom. And yet you tell other people how they should license their software projects, even when you aren't involved in those projects in any way, and their license choices don't impact you in any way. And you tell people what software they should and shouldn't use purely on subjective philosophical grounds.
Personally I call that something other than promoting freedom. Quite the opposite.
> you tell people what software they should and shouldn't use
Please, there's no point in arguing like that. There's no need to mischaracterize or reword what another user is saying.
I don't think we'll get much further in this discussion if you consider yourself a fan of the FSL, a proprietary license. Your time will be better spent replying to other people.
> > you tell people what software they should and shouldn't use
> There's no need to mischaracterize or reword what another user is saying.
You directly linked to a post by RMS which says things like "When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For your own sake, you should escape." Among many other examples in that post, and countless other FSF posts, telling people not to use non-Free Software. This is not a mischaracterization.
Granted, these are RMS's statements, not yours. But I assumed that since you linked to that post and are espousing similar concepts, you are endorsing its contents and hold the same views. If that is not the case, my apologies. But perhaps you could clarify whether or not you think RMS is correct to tell people not to use non-Free software?
> if you consider yourself a fan of the FSL
I live in a free society and can be a fan of whatever license I want -- meaning, I can express free will in how I select what software I use, and how I license software that I create. That is freedom. I am not trying to dictate what software or licenses you use, because I respect your freedom to do the same.
> That license restricts what you can do with the software due to a business interest of the author.
Yes, it restricts you from offering a competing hosted service. Do you offer a competing hosted service to Liquibase using Liquibase's source code? Is this something you ever would conceivably do? If not, how does this restriction affect your life in any way?
> Therefore, it's non-free or proprietary.
I never claimed it was Free Software.