I read all 3.

The critic has been tricked. He is naive nice person. And therein lies the rub. He is dwelling on rebutalling the bullshit not realizing it's purpose is to distract away from real issues.

He's argued twice based on nostalgia rather than on legal merits.

People may have legitimate reasons to want different terms in an open source license. The critic rejects this.

If the critic has nothing to add to the conversation, he should go pound sand. The adults are capable of ripping systems apart and understand how to pieces fit back together and can customizing them without deviating from FOSS and OSD philosophy.

Go with aGPLv3. FUTOs nonsense nonpoints don't help in the least.

Real issues like pay only in Monero to the maintainer without any KYC. Not in encumbered methods requiring our time and risk of not being able to receive the funds. No NPOs. No middlemen that take cut.

Devs needs to unionize or form gangs. Society is currently telling us to get a job rather than maintain the packages world+dog relies upon. That's malicious, suicidal, has real consequences, and thus should be our #1 political issue. And we have to change society's focus by causing a rukcus, not submitting more resumes to create more web sites and smartphone apps or cloud services. Which is just purposefully pushing us towards a job creation program rather than a means to maintain world+dog's tech base.

There should be a systematic way for companies to pay towards those maintaining their tech stack. Lacking this, the companies can just say they are confused on how to go about paying devs. I can see their POV. That infrastructure needs to exist.

None of these points, violate open source philosophy one bit.

None of these points require yet another license. It's more about what direction tech community has to take moving forward.