> Unless of course, “whatever you want” includes not publishing your changes. Copyleft does not permit people to do “whatever they want” You can absolutely not

> Unless of course, “whatever you want” includes not publishing your changes. Copyleft does not permit people to do “whatever they want” You can absolutely not publish your changes, where did you get the idea FOSS forces you to publish? FOSS imposes restrictions upon distribution; you're free to use the software however you want if you keep it to yourself. > I said “variations of FOSS licenses”, which is precisely what I provided examples of. In that case, you introduced something irrelevant. A variation of FOSS which introduces changes that break the fundamental tenets stops being FOSS. Hence, you cannot get away with using the term "a variation of FOSS", because it's a variation that happens not to be FOSS. Your other opinions of why people like or dislike this or that license or philosophy, comparisons to RMS's early days, etc, are all red herrings. They are worth debating, but completely irrelevant for deciding what is or isn't FOSS. A license that restrict usage by Russians, or in nuclear reactors, or that requires you to first agree abortion is wrong (or right) is fundamentally not FOSS. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is on you, but also irrelevant in this context.