I was thinking about this further, and I wanted to say that you're confusing what you want with what "we" "need" to do.
I'm not trying to be argumentative so much as point out that different people/companies have different goals, motivations and values. There are many stops between avoidance and zealotry.
For the people/companies who were happy to pay for Greensock and happier to use it for free-as-in-beer, clearly there is something there which speaks to them regardless of how it is licensed. It's important to remember that freedom means people can absolutely choose a paid product, and that's no moral or ethical lapse but often an educated decision.
Web flow will sue you if you use green sock as a competitor. In what world of truly open source software is that something we should allow as a society? Let alone want.
I don’t want software to get corrupted by financialization. This is why so many people are passionate about open source, it also leads us to the next phase of this battle where software patents are made obsolete because it’s all mathematics and you shouldn’t be able to patent mathematical systems.
I'm not trying to be argumentative so much as point out that different people/companies have different goals, motivations and values. There are many stops between avoidance and zealotry.
For the people/companies who were happy to pay for Greensock and happier to use it for free-as-in-beer, clearly there is something there which speaks to them regardless of how it is licensed. It's important to remember that freedom means people can absolutely choose a paid product, and that's no moral or ethical lapse but often an educated decision.