It's an interesting article but it seems to me that when it comes to opposing abuse of power, free communication is more fundamental than free software. Without sufficiently free communication, free software is practically unavailable and for many purposes (anything that involves communication with others) it is unusable. Without sufficiently free means of communication, the fediverse will cease to exist. Access to and use of the Internet is increasingly regulated.

Thanks for sharing. Although I'm an enthusiastic open source user, I haven't written any code of significance, so I'm not aware: has anyone made a license where use is restricted to individuals and democratically controlled organizations? I'm picturing that would allow for some degree of profit motive while encouraging things like worker co-ops and excluding venture capital controlled entities.

Open Source won not Free Software. Author didn't demonstrate that viral Free Software licenses lead to same undesired state as permissive Open Source demonstratably do.

Non-commercial terms hinder the ability of others to fork a project, which is a concern if something bad inevitability happens. [They give into temptation and add anti-features, or people do/say something which makes them untrustworthy or unassociatable].

Love it, please keep writing.

Typo on “Free, Open Source Software does not a social movement make.” Presumably “does not make a”?

Great writeup, good argumentation, and excellent sourcing, linking to external resources

That license, if normalized, would be fully championed by big tech. Who would love to have a you can help us but not compete product they own dominate a market.