> i objected to the use of the word 'owe' in the advice, basically.
I suppose the original post does not state the "owing" in an absolute sense but as a recommendation to shape your morals so that they include that it's good to feel that something should be returned. Using the word "owe" for that is suitable, though it does not mean that everybody you see in the situation would "owe" money to the performer.
> You learn as a person when you understand why you should do something not just blindly following a list of advice.
So you are trying to drive that point home by adding to that list with this statement?
I read this list more as some inspiration -- most of the points were mostly "meh, sure" and won't stick, but there were a few food-for-thought points in there that I'll likely remember here and there. If that's similar for most people reading the list, it's quite a success. (Doesn't have to be the same few points for everybody!)
The advice was aiming at the moral level. You missed that completely, unfortunately.
> they are not entitled to anything just because they made a choice to perform in a public place.
And you are making a choice of whether or not you support them if you found so much pleasure in listening to them that you chose to spend over a minute listening to them instead of walking past them. You are entitled to just move on. Whether it's the right thing to do is a different question and only for yourself to decide.
I think the key property of the GPL is its virality. It's part of the vision that if I can use some software, I can also change it, to adapt it to my needs, to learn from it, to build something on top of it. I can disassemble my bike, re-assemble it, change it, build on top of it. I want to do that with my browser, my OS kernel and my image viewer too.
That this is connected to how "valuable" code is, is in a sense a happy coincidence. The conditions are attached and entangled because this forces people to listen and pay attention.
A more "permissive" license (like BSD) is weakening that point. It allows you to reuse code but does not require the re-user to allow the above mentioned openness. So is kind of missing the point, from that perspective.
> i objected to the use of the word 'owe' in the advice, basically.
I suppose the original post does not state the "owing" in an absolute sense but as a recommendation to shape your morals so that they include that it's good to feel that something should be returned. Using the word "owe" for that is suitable, though it does not mean that everybody you see in the situation would "owe" money to the performer.