If you were merely annoyed with someone and letting that be, then you tolerate them.
Everyone is always ignorant of something, you and I included. Human rights doesn't come into this. It's people pretending to be ignorant of nothing who I'm wary of.
The which is freeer software decision and whether to tolerate the intolerant or not are both a paradox. You can't know whether you're enabling a net increase in freedom/tolerance or decreasing it because you're doing both and won't know the result until its too late. Either decision, like choosing any value, requires a moral compromise based on the realities of the situation.
I agree with this statement - I don't think they're analogous because each situation has a different reality. It's like saying "As a submarine commander, you should be able to command this space shuttle because flying a shuttle is just like commanding a submarine - both vehicles are surrounded by a hostile environment." But of course we know the two environments are not analogous like that - they have different realities.
Commercial software licenses and intolerance are both a result of the self interest of the individual in society and are a defensive measure that protects individual values from community over reach. GPL and enforcing-tolerance are based on community values that protect a shared interest against the interests of individuals.
Everyone is always ignorant of something, you and I included. Human rights doesn't come into this. It's people pretending to be ignorant of nothing who I'm wary of.