@gsuberland There are no "FOSS" ideals - "FOSS" is a wishy-washy attempt to be neutral between the freedom of free software and the ruinous compromise of "open source", while failing to be neutral as people assume it means; gratis, source-available software.

>means complete unwavering and unconditional support for the user's freedom of choice
Only 100% free software gives unwavering and unconditional support for the users of freedom, as that gives them the freedom to make any choice in how they use the software and to personally make any change they want - while proprietary software says no to many usages and denies many, or all modifications via refusal to provide the source code and digital handcuffs.

>tangible freedoms that result in real-world benefits, rather than abstract ideals and notions of purity
100% free software is a tangible result that gives real-world benefits and happens to be 100% pure as well.

>this means putting the user first
Putting the user first would mean never attacking them with proprietary software.

If you ever subject a user to proprietary software, you are putting the user 4th, behind the proprietary master's agenda and other parties.

>even if they choose to use non-free software.
With free software, the user is free to choose to personally run whatever software they like, as it's not like the .elf loader will refuse to load a nonfree elf that the user executes.

Only nonfree software does things like refuse to load an .elf because it doesn't pass the handcuffing signature check.

>interoperate. make stuff work *for* the user.
Free software is written with interoperation in mind, often with stdin/stdout interoperation and with documented file formats and protocols.

As soon as you introduce proprietary software, you make stuff work *against* the user, as that is what proprietary software does.