Let's consider how bizarre the opposites are:<p>"it is compulsory to like free software"<p>"You will be prevented from grumbling about the software"<p>"Users must all patch or fork the software"<p>"Everybody will be forced to use the software"<p>"You will be punished if you express opinions"<p>"You are not allowed to mute or block others"<p>"You must not think about the opinions of others, but you must pay attention"<p>Parsing out all the bizarrely obvious stuff from this post, if we try to distill it down to an opinion, what's hidden in there? It should be expressed in terms of good and bad, not liberty. The liberty is obvious. What's it saying about what people <i>ought</i> to do?<p>* Devs ought to respect their grumbling users. They ought not be pissy about users who grumble but don't contribute. They ought not have some insular concept of loyalty where users who use other software are outsiders or splitters.<p>* Devs ought to selectively ignore their grumbling users, though, and contributors, instead of acting like slaves and getting burnt out. In this there's an implication that it's right to think you <i>own</i> your (version of your) project, and that you should control it if that pleases you.<p>* We should communicate our opinions, should not harass anyone, and should stop listening when bored or annoyed.<p>It all makes more sense when couched in moralistic terms, I think. Because it's not in fact about freedoms.