Aaron Wolf

Actually, free software as a concept doesn't even push copyleft, i.e. mandatory sharing per license *when* you redistribute. That's a *tactic*. Free software says that nobody should be limited in their use of software by someone else having control over the software.

So, yes, you should be able to modify and no requirements to share your modifications (that would be a non-free requirement). But also, a permissive i.e. pushover license like BSD-3 is itself fully respected as free software. *If* everyone keeps that license when they publish derivatives, then nobody in free software movement is unhappy about it. The problem is only when derivatives are published under proprietary terms. That goes against free software. So, it's not that free software says you "must, in turn, share the modified source" when you share the software with others in terms of whether the license requires you to. Instead, free software just says that *if* you have a legal license that *doesn't* have that requirement, then to use your legal power to skip sharing the source, that is unethical.

In short: free software says that both copyleft and permissive licenses are fine, but permissive licenses give you the *legal* power to do something unethical that you should never do. So, it's understandable that they promote licenses that legally block the unethical behavior. But if behavior is legally allowed but never happens, that's okay too.

Thanks, VM. I agree completely. I didn't attack any person, but I was indeed confrontational. The OP comment started with saying "free software is a lie", and I (tired but still knowing that text cannot communicate clearly) aimed to just bluntly point out how unconstructive and confrontational the OP was. But I'm super happy to see your sort of reply to me, it's spot on.