> That's opposite because copyleft is ultimately about user freedom not developers freedom.

Yeah, the whole idea of GPL is to restrict developers from doing certain things, because it would be harmful to users

Freedom given to people without agency that you can control is not true freedom.

It's a protection racket. The moment you produce anything of value, it is taken from you and given to those who don't deserve it.

The GPL is so Soviet-coded that, if anything, I want to know how the corporate commissars convinced all of these zealots to release their code under permissive licenses to begin with.

In 1999, I wouldn't have considered it possible.

> The moment you produce anything of value, it is taken from you

Nobody is forced to license their software using GPL though

Nobody. Just the workers who want to add to the project the yoke of which they have been forced to live under.

I don't feel like arguing with FSF/Iron Curtain types, anyways.

If somebody has a non-exploitative Liberty-based argument for the GPL, I will hear it.

No one is being forced to use or contribute back to the project though. In fact, you can even use GPL licensed software, and so long as everyone with the binaries doesn't ever request the source, you do not have to publish it at all.

Fresh argument, you should take it to usenet

Yeah, the whole point of GPL is that people can fork it and improve it as long as they share the code back.

If Asahi is rejecting LLM produced code, then they will get the modified source but will be unable to use it because of their own rules.