From the OP: > Caring about who gets the credit more than successfully creating change is not a good look. So yeah, the author is disingenuous at best. Anoth

From the OP: > Caring about who gets the credit more than successfully creating change is not a good look. So yeah, the author is disingenuous at best. Another point where they pretend not to see the benefits: Free Software and specifically copyleft has succeeded in getting so many manufacturers to publish their kernel source code, opening the door for bringing more freedom to a bunch of people using their technological devices today (eg. all the ROMs for phones and IoT devices). And the attempt to highlight the "metonymy" (you know they are bullshitting as soon as they start using terms unfamiliar to the masses) in "free press" but argue against "free software" standing for "software that can be freely used" is very hypocritical too. Righto, who is this "the speech" in "free speech" (alluding to their use of "the software" group). I've given up reading at that point because it's a post by someone bitter focusing on an unproven premise (how a political ideology has failed if there is no change in leadership for more than 10 years — maybe it's because centralised leadership is not necessary to achieve it ;-)). Anyway, language is free for people to adapt to their needs, and no amount of elitist grammatical nitpicking will ever change that.