I'm a bit disheartened not to see the word "commons" appear once in the discussion (although admittedly, it can be used interchangeably with "public" most of the time).
I'm not familiar enough with the history of the free software movement to participate in the debate as framed by the article (edit: OP's), but I thought the author had a narrow focus on individual freedoms. I always thought of the GPL and related licenses as a useful means of building and safeguarding a type of commons.
I'm not familiar enough with the history of the free software movement to participate in the debate as framed by the article (edit: OP's), but I thought the author had a narrow focus on individual freedoms. I always thought of the GPL and related licenses as a useful means of building and safeguarding a type of commons.