Not all software is sold as part of a business. Free software is one such example. So this comparison is inappropriate. >I think this is something governments

Not all software is sold as part of a business. Free software is one such example. So this comparison is inappropriate. >I think this is something governments should have enforced long ago. Even linux distros with > N number of users should be required by law to id-verify package publishers. There should be massive burdens and surveillance on linux and free software maintainers, because ???. I guess it's just too easy for them, so they should be shoeboxed into a business model for developing software whether they like it or not. >You have the right to free speech, anonymity and privacy. But being able to reach and impact the public is not a right, it is a privilege. This is just some nonsense platitude, not unlike the canadian idea of "freedom of expression". "You have the right to a completely weak and useless form of speech because I say so" >but if you want to arrange a protest, you must give your id for the approval. What are you yapping about old man? We have the right to assemble. There is limited radio and TV is regulated only because there is limited bandwidth. Software is special because it is just information and Information Wants To Be Free. You are making the argument here that because some old forms of information distribution are regulated due to technical restraints, that all forms of information should be highly regulated. Software is just information, as I stated earlier. It could be encoded into any information medium, for example a book. So why not regulate software in the same way that books are regulated, which provides strong free speech protections?