The problem is that code doesn't afford freedom. Money does. So to the extent that a license inhibits users of a codebase from making money, it is anti-freedom.
To the extent that the Underground Railroad inhibits would-be slave-owners from making money, it's anti-freedom.
Note that I'm quite emphatically not saying these are exactly the same thing, but pointing out by example that there are other factors that can clearly be far more important.
There are some obvious important factors - most importantly the ability to extend my software (or pay others to do so) and to thereby ensure continued interoperability.
In general, because an increasing amount of our lives are dependent on software and there are far more users than developers.
Note crucially that we're not talking about all ability to make money (as we would be with Non-Commercial clauses); we're talking about the difference between the ability to earn money based on copyleft code (demonstrably non-zero) versus non-copyleft code (probably more).
> The problem is that code doesn't afford freedom. Money does.
What do you mean by "freedom?"
I would argue in fact that code, as a tool for producing goods and services, affords greater freedom than money does. The argument is specifically about, IMO, the question of restrictions on what goods and services can be provided. Those restrictions I would agree are anti-freedom but it has nothing to do with money per se.
If you are paid in chickens, does that make you any less free?
So you are arguing that a barter system provides more freedom than a money based economy.
I'm genuinely interested and open to being convinced of that, but you've only said "I would argue that.." and then offered conclusions without actually presenting the argument.
Not really. Money is an abstraction. The freedom is not in money. The freedom is in what you make that you bring to market. Whether you barter or trade for money is really a secondary concern.
