Thoughts
On the other hand, I legitimately want:
* People who choose software licenses to understand what that license is asking
* To comply with the letter of the rules of what I'm being asked to do
* People to understand that "free software" or "open source software" has very particular meaning and you can't just see code on GitHub and assume you can do whatever you want with it
There's a culture born out of the popularity of open source software that takes open source as the default. On the user side, this looks like people assuming that if code is on GitHub you can do whatever you want with it. On the other side, people+companies upload their code to GitHub and slap a license on it without understanding what rights they're giving up, and without wanting to enforce the terms. This the idea that a "open source license" really communicates "I'm not going to sue you," and this leads to "open source" being used to virtue-signal. When people use it to represent "giving code away for free," without understanding what they've legally said.
On the contrary, I think it's important that we remember that the default (under law) is zero freedom to distribute or modify. To quote the GNU GPLv2, "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."