How about #59: "Free advice is seldom cheap." Because you're basically saying that there's no such thing as free, and it's simply an 'unclarified financial contract to be consolidated at a later time.' Quark would approve! If I'm paying for a friend's lunch it's because I want to, not because I expect anything from him in the future. And beyond that, I do not consider downloading something somebody has released for free as establishing a relationship.
The third rule of acquisition, quite obviously. But you seem to be forgetting the sixteenth.
More importantly: you are forgetting the meaning of “acquisition”. The instant the author released the software as free software, it was no longer “theirs”. It became everyone’s. The authorship is from that instant irrelevant.
It was “acquired” by the user in a moral sense at the time it was licensed by the original author (for a payment of $0, chosen by the author), not at the time the licensee began using it to make millions.
The original author chose the moral obligation placed upon the recipients of this gift, and they EXPLICITLY chose zero when they picked the license. To donate money to them later is to contravene their expressed wishes.
You can pretend that “they didn’t really mean that” but they are free to commit any text whatsoever they choose in ./LICENSE, and they chose one that declares THEIR OWN PERSONAL OPINION of the payments morally obligated by use of the software to be zero.
> You've created a logical justification for a myopic, misanthropic world view.
Nobody said it wouldn't be nice, but that it does not confer "obligation". This is the key word. I would argue a world where people do things because they want to, and not because they feel they have to, would actually generally be a nicer world to live in.
> Many find reciprocation important in a relationship.
Yes, and those sorts of relationships aren't really built on much if a gift obligates the other to repay. Why even buy lunch then? It just becomes this back and forth obligation and it is wearing and actually erodes the relationship slightly, if anything. I would argue a true gift is one that does not obligate the other party to reciprocate. That does NOT mean it would not be a decent thing to do something nice (for the other person OR someone else), but just that it is not obligated. The person should not feel a weight to do so. Once this weight is lifted, it is actually very freeing, and it strengthens the relationship, if anything.
I don't buy someone lunch with an implicit expectation that they'll buy me lunch in the future. That's tacky and gross. I buy lunch because I wanted to buy them lunch, and if they decide to buy me lunch, I happily accept.
Means you're not in the "many" segment. Doesn't mean many others are not in the "many" segment. I, myself, find reciprocation important even if not for identical "gifts".
Yes, there's no argument because you're incapable of coming up with an argument because you don't have anything to base it on. You're just responding emotionally and trying to slander them because you know that they made a good point and you hate that.
> You've created a logical justification for a myopic, misanthropic world view.
It is neither. It is a quite reasonable worldview that the vast majority of the population subscribes to and finds rather acceptable.
> Many find reciprocation important in a relationship.
This is a non-answer, because you know that the answer is "no", but you can't bear to say it because that would be admitting that your position is inconsistent, yet you can't assert that the answer is "yes" because that's obviously insane.
Thank you for so eloquently refuting all of your own arguments.
Remind me, which Ferengi Rule of Acquisition is this?
There's not much argument to be had. You've created a logical justification for a myopic, misanthropic world view.
> My friend bought me lunch. I used that energy at my job. Do I owe them part of my paycheck?
Many find reciprocation important in a relationship.