I’m not complaining; I’m clarifying for less informed readers. It’s a subtle and often misleading distinction.

Calling a license that leads to more proprietary software “even more open source” is absolutely debatable. The only extra restriction is disallowing free software becoming proprietary, which promotes more openness overall.

You’re not wrong by any means, but people should understand the actual tradeoff when considering licenses.

More open strictly in that it allows free software to be rolled up into proprietary software.

Just because competition can be suppressed temporarily within a discrete system doesn’t mean it has ceased to exist. Exactly why ideologies that demand the absence of competition will eventually be outcompeted from the outside.

The health of the current system is undenianly declining, absolutely. But competition is eternal and non-optional, so systems that seek to eliminate it are intrinsically doomed.

Well, competition has been going pretty strong for the last four billion years; time will tell.

Yes, exactly! For all the noxious effects of greed, it drives competition which drives evolution.

Even if a utopian communist/anarchist society were able to stabilize on its own, it would inevitably be overcome at some point in the future by a more competitive society that had martially evolved beyond the utopia’s understanding.

Whether its right or wrong has no bearing on the entropy of it.