@masterofthetiger@theres.life I disagree with the Free Software movement's ideas of free software. 😉 I think open source code is great, I think claims that people or companies "own" code are absurd, and any license which restricts what I can do with my software (whether it's a EULA or the GPL) under threat of violence is immoral.
Philosophy II
@danielst @masterofthetiger@theres.life With regard to the first point, certainly. Age of consent is a culturally flexible concept. I think it's an important one, but not one that we have a dogmatic answer for. So, I don't find RMS's assertions here to be profoundly problematic. I'll happily concede the second point also: it's absurd to suggest that an arbitrary distinction of geography or chronology renders an act unethical. Raping someone is reprehensible no matter where or when it's done.
@danielst to the third point, I would say 1) contra Mt. 10:8, I didn't say that it's ethical to hoard code. Sharing code is certainly the most ethical way to develop. But compelling people to share code constitutes something unethical too.
Most certainly the GPL is not a burden on users. But I would disagree with the notion that the GPL made Linux thrive--Linux thrived in spite of the GPL. The decline in Linux Foundation lawsuits prosecuting GPL violations shows this.
@masterofthetiger@theres.life
Philosophy III
@iamjameswalters @masterofthetiger@theres.life
Finally, your basically saying that what's given to you for free, you should not be forced to give to others for free. c.f. Mt.10:8b;
Don't want to go to far here, but I'm tempted to say the GPL is a light yoke. Especially for users. Bigtech knows that, profits massively (and therefore accepts the yoke) from GPL code but takes care the enduser doesn't.
GPL made Linux thrive. Linus knows that, despite not really liking RMS.