I'm sorry, but you stated your opinion and views before and you just did again, people who believe this are people like you:

> nor on why copyright exists in the first place and how your idea of “anything that has been published I am totally free to use” may be a political goal, but it’s not how the world works

> Your style of arguing makes it very difficult to engage with.

Is it because I said "people like you"? If you took that as a personal attack, I apologize, by that I meant people that have the same mindset and views as you do.

We're debating different views and legalities here after all.

> that you actually reflected on the freedoms they’re arguing for

I think you're just accusing me of things you're not doing. I can only post so many walls of text to explain my views and deep reflections. You're very quick to dismiss my view as being shallow simply because in your view the majority opinion is well thought out and anything opposing it must be dismissed. I argued for my personal and individual rights to property, natural rights so to speak which are more important to me than the pseudo-freedom of software people like you (i hope that term is ok now that I clarified what I mean) eschew.

> but it’s not how the world works

The world works how we make it work. The world works the way it does because people like you dismiss any attempt to change it, just like now. I have no illusion that anytime in my lifetime copyright laws will vanish. But that doesn't mean I'll give up pointing out the silliness of it all and the grand robbery of our most fundamental rights.

> Oh and I am not sure if you’re aware that you can ASK people what they mean before throwing around insinuations and judgments based on some inner fantasy of the person you’re talking to.

I think you're in severe need of a mirror, you're upset because I said "people like me", you're repeating your views, and I'm attacking them repeatedly, but you keep trying to make this debate about my shallow thinking or insinuations, instead of sticking to the merits of the view points being debated.

My view is neither unique nor original for the record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M...

> Article II – The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.

> Article XVII – Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of private usage, if it is not when the public necessity, legally noted, evidently requires it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity.

I won't ask you to "reflect", but don't ask me to surrender my rights so that you can force someone to do things with their source code. Successful public domain projects exist. And please read my sibling comment here about how the current copyleft thinking has gotten bigtech entrenched in open source, robbing us of our choices and liberties in the process.