> This does not really affect software freedom in the traditional sense? That’s not the point though. These kinds of people just consistently seek conflict and

> This does not really affect software freedom in the traditional sense? That’s not the point though. These kinds of people just consistently seek conflict and are bending the reality to fit their narrow field of view. And yet, they don’t see why no one use their projects. Anyway, this article was probably written on a computer booted with a proprietary bios, typed on a keyboard with a proprietary firmware, a proprietary CPU microcode and what else. There’s no code base to “hard fork” to sell as their own nor really something to make outrage of so they don’t care though. In reality, that’s more of a religious issue than anything else. Fingers are pointed at those that are not extremist enough for their taste. Real freedom is letting people do what they want with software. Most so-called free software licenses are actually really restrictive and absolutely not freedom inducing. I guess it’s very important to create confusion not to say exclusion and throw around licences so complex that you actually almost require a lawyer to understand if you can use the software or not so organizations that produce nothing of real importance can exist and preach the “real freedom”.