FSF and his recommended distributions

*Personally*, I would also rephrase the following:

#+BEGIN_QUOTE

[...] The social movement Stallman started -- the Free Software movement
-- predates the Open Source developmental philosophy identified by the
Open Source Initiative by over a decade, and the GNU GPL encourages
something the open source group eschew: software freedom [...]

#+END_QUOTE

And change it like so:

#+BEGIN_QUOTE

[...] The social movement Stallman started -- the Free Software movement
-- predates the Open Source developmental method identified by the Open
Source Initiative by over a decade, and the GNU GPL encourages something
the open source group eschew: the essential freedoms of the software,
which is prerequisite for software freedom for the entire society [...]

#+END_QUOTE

At least for me, this naming change from "software freedom" to "freedom
of the software" is important so that people understand that it's not a
matter of "being free/libre to use any software or license one wishes
to", but a matter of the software having said freedoms, so that the
latter matter can be achieved.

Also, I don't want to discredit your arguments, because I agree entirely
with your arguments, but just for the fun of it: I have changed "Open
Source developmental philosophy" to "Open Source developmental method"
because I don't believe that open source is a philosophy, because it
doesn't question what is moral and ethical or not, contrary to what the
free/libre software movement does, see
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/google-engineering-talk.html]] and
[[https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html]]. Besides, the open source
development method itself choose not to question these matters right
from the start when they decided to change their approach towards the
general public, see [[https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html]] and
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html]].

I really going to speak on my experience, Most of the freedos programs I have installed are gpl license. Yet when compiling freedos is different from ms-dos, in other aspects freedos is different than ms-dos. You will not see it until you have try it. remember it is not a linuz-gnu program.

FreeDOS Spec further reading:
http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Spec

Copyright

Any effort that goes into writing a FreeDOS would, of course, be redistributed in both binary and source code form. Therefore, we urge programmers to release their software under a distribution agreement, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL), which says in part from its Preamble:

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software—to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
Distribution

Anyone may create and sell distributions of a GPL'd operating system (such as FreeDOS) so long as there is a distinction made as to what the customer is actually buying. That is, it must be made clear that the distributor is not claiming that they own or wrote the GPL program, and that they don't reserve any rights to the GPL program.

The GNU GPL says:

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

Additionally, the distributor must understand that any changes they make to the GPL program must be identifed and must be released under the GNU GPL. For example, if someone adds FAT32 support into the FreeDOS kernel, then the patched kernel falls under GPL and must be freely available. However, if they add FAT32 support as a .SYS file and simply bundles the .SYS file with the FreeDOS kernel, then they may place whatever restrictions they like only on the .SYS file.

The idea is to protect the free software and their authors. No one else should be able to take their code and misrepresent it, or worse, illegally or unethically profiting from it.

Additionally, they can sell their own proprietary (i.e. closed-source) app, bundled with FreeDOS, and charge for their distributed work as long as their work does not make any changes to the GPL code we wrote and maintain. They must follow the GPL and give us credit for our work, offer the GPL'd source with their distribution or extend an offer to supply the source for a reasonable cost.

Persons interested in distributing copies of FreeDOS should download a copy of the GNU GPL and see how it applies to your specific situation. Read it carefully and have it reviewed by a lawyer, just as you would any other license you would consider for software redistribution; the GNU GPL is a legal document.