[zen21]

> Because he referenced the GPL, which includes such a clause indicating that there is no quality beyond the source that constitutes the property.

That clause means that the author of the code isn’t legally liable for defects.

How is this relevant at all to the article? Nobody is talking about legal action.

>> He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.

> That's circumstantial, like most things in life.

Obviously. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, nor that we shouldn’t discuss it.

> You continue to argue in bad faith along every one of these digressions from the article.

Generally when someone complains about an argument being in bad faith it means they are personally invested in defending something they think is under attack. It’s not clear to me what you think you are defending.