[lytedev]

You are correct in that I ignored a specific request, but you are also ignoring the larger social contract of open source that is also at play. To release software with a certain license has a social component of its own that seems to be unaccounted for here.

Your analogy to me seems imprecise, as analogies tend to be when it comes to digital goods. I'm not taking pennies in any sense here, preventing the next person from making use of some public good.

You can make a similar argument for piracy or open source, and yet... Here we all still are and open source has won for the most part.

[CaptainFever]

I think back to the original idea of free software.

The GPL protects users from any restrictions the author wants to use. No additional restrictions are allowed, whether technical or legal.

In this case, the restriction is social, but is a restriction nonetheless (some enforce it by harassment, some by making you feel bad).

But you could ignore it, even fork it and create a white label version, and be proud of it (thereby bypassing the restriction). Donate voluntarily if you want to contribute, without being restricted technically, legally, or socially.

[lytedev]

I agree with your comment here, and would add that I believe the license and open source in general has a certain social restriction as well and implies how the software may or may not be used, which is part of what makes this discussion nuanced and difficult, as it appears there are two true and opposing points.