Thanks for the stimulating conversation. I'm almost out of juice, so I'll just reply to a few things -- > both of us are making propaganda That may be. As lon

Thanks for the stimulating conversation. I'm almost out of juice, so I'll just reply to a few things -- > both of us are making propaganda That may be. As long as we're being honest about it, I think that's fine. I feel like the article wasn't being honest about being propaganda. > It may well be that the best way to guarantee free artefacts is by distributing Non-Free software I don't really follow. If charging 1$ from everyone ends up being the best outcome for free software (we're talking about free as in speech, right?), then yeah, I think that makes it free. Just not as in beer. I don't see how it can be otherwise. > The idea that clauses like 1, 6, and 9 are just corporate quirks I'm not saying any of them are quirks. I'm saying that they are not axioms. If you write an article trying to defend them, you should try to actually defend them, rather than say "this is how it's always been" or "this is the mainstream, just accept it." It's very likely that if we argued about the actual free/open-source licenses, I would end up agreeing with most of what you say. But I still believe the article in question was written in bad faith, and you didn't convince me otherwise.