How staunch is too staunch when it comes to free and open source software?

One one end of the spectrum, there are those that feel free and open source software is anti-capitalist, evil, and just plain wrong. On the other end of the spectrum there are those that feel all software should be free. Free is typically defined on two axis: price, and freedom of use/redistribution/modification. Is there a sweet spot on this spectrum? Read on...

The organizations we work with have to make decisions along this spectrum every day. At FOSSLC, we are in the same position. For one example, our video content - should we strictly use free codecs? It is clear from the statistics that a policy of strictly free codecs would only reach a small subset of people. Roughly 20% of web surfers use Firefox. Of those, only Firefox 3.5 supports the <video> tag. Thus perhaps <10% of those surfing the web are already running Firefox 3.5. We suspect these people are likely to find our content interesting, but are not helped that much by it since they've already made the choice to use FOSS. Does this force our hand to embrace closed source technology to reach those we're trying to inform about open source technology?

Adobe provides proprietary technology that is ubiquitous on the web - Flash and Air. Thus should we use it, or should we not? For now, we're using both so that we can be true to the values and principles we mean to support and nurture while at the same time reaching people to help inform them about FOSS. As free codecs such as theory, vorbis, FLAC, Speex, and the software (such as Firefox 3.5) using them become more ubiquitous, it becomes more practical to lean towards the free end of the spectrum without forgoing the people you're trying to reach. So perhaps time and technology evolution are making this less of a problem. For now though, the numbers clearly indicate without the proprietary technologies, you are talking to an empty room metaphorically speaking.

Are we really helping ourselves by doing this, or simply playing into the hands of the company with the established proprietary technology. In choosing free software such as Firefox, are we liberating ourselves or helping Google to use a FOSS component that isn't core to their business to hurt their competitor? For instance, would Google invest so much money into Mozilla if it wasn't lessening Microsoft's death grip on the web browser? For that matter, where would Mozilla, or Eclipse, or Linux be without corporate contributions? Beyond this, other FOSS such as Asterisk, SugarCRM, Ingres, Alfresco, and more get a significant portion of their development, documentation, and testing from the corporations standing behind them. Obviously corporate interest is required for FOSS to be successful and to reach the maximum number of people.

This is by no means the only area this comes up. So what should our policy be in general?