There are many criticisms of the various freedoms embodied by Stallmanism's notion of free software (to borrow a term from the article). A thorough rebuttal of the entire viewpoint requires, IMO:
1. An ardent defense of capitalism and private property.
2. A critique of open source as a superior software development methodology.
You'll find shades of (1) in various defenses of competing open source licenses (e.g. BSD). But also, (1) is a pretty common attitude in software development circles (a majority of the libertarians I know are software people).
(2) is a lot less common in developer crowds, I think in part because when evaluated as a purely factual and categorical claim, it's trivial to prove false. Many of the most successful software projects in the world are open source.
The economic argument against (2) is far more common -- and is made in this thread by sprafa for example.
TBF the moral case against (2) probably really is as rare as you claim (which is a good thing IMO).
But the intersection of (1) and (2) isn't impossible to imagine, and I think there are a lot of developers who get close to this confluence of opinions. Or at least a lot closer than they are to "Stallmanist" freedom.
I don't think (2) is necessary to rebut Stallmanism - development methodology was never really a part of Free Software - but I don't agree that (1) is enough. One can defend capitalism and (physical) private property without defending copyright and patents †. In fact, it could be argued that they're anti-private-property, by preventing one from using one's stuff as one sees fit.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly what you have said, but I think it should be pointed out that GPL absolutely depends on and hangs off of copyright law. It's just as much an expression of the ownership of thought as proprietary software is.
That's true, but the GPL is just a neat tool that Stallman invented to work within the current legislation, it's not an actual component of his philosophy. For example, he supported a change to the laws that would shorten the GPL, as long as it also forced proprietary software to open up after a while[1]. He also specifically said that copyright is "no longer beneficial" and proposed major reforms, including eliminating any restrictions on private sharing of works[2].
Stallman's philosophy is that all software should be Free because the users deserve it, not because the author wishes it to be.
Why would (1) be necessary? GPL software is not consigned to the public domain or ownership automatically transferred to the FSF. It is still the property of the original developer, who are simply distributing and licensing its use only to those who comply with a certain set of conditions.
Proprietary licences will sometimes prohibit resale or modification, for instance. Licences like the GPL do the exact opposite: they allow modification and resale under the condition that these subsequent derivative works are licensed under the same terms (if distributed).
I would have thought being able to decide the conditions under which others can use your private property is an idea the most ardent capitalist would support.
I agree 100% with your last paragraph. I think the issue for many libertarians, however, is this: should thought be considered personal property, thus under legal protection by the state?
1. An ardent defense of capitalism and private property.
2. A critique of open source as a superior software development methodology.
You'll find shades of (1) in various defenses of competing open source licenses (e.g. BSD). But also, (1) is a pretty common attitude in software development circles (a majority of the libertarians I know are software people).
(2) is a lot less common in developer crowds, I think in part because when evaluated as a purely factual and categorical claim, it's trivial to prove false. Many of the most successful software projects in the world are open source.
The economic argument against (2) is far more common -- and is made in this thread by sprafa for example.
Surprisingly, there are also moral arguments against (2) -- see e.g. https://acmsonline.org/home2/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/VanD...
TBF the moral case against (2) probably really is as rare as you claim (which is a good thing IMO).
But the intersection of (1) and (2) isn't impossible to imagine, and I think there are a lot of developers who get close to this confluence of opinions. Or at least a lot closer than they are to "Stallmanist" freedom.