>But can you not at least understand that many people don't understand why those four Freedoms have to be assumed as given?
No, I can't. I fundamentally don't understand why you would keep source code secret, why you would deny me the right to change it or to redistribute copies. It's utterly incomprehensible to me.
On the contrary, I believe the burden of proof as to why we should deny people these Freedoms lies on the side of the advocates or proprietary software, and thus far I haven't seen any compelling argument.
You have to change perspective: Why don’t have I a right to keep my source code secret?
When I open an ice cream parlor you don’t have a right to know my recipe†. Why does that change with software?
Your argumentative work has to start there. You can’t just steamroll critics by saying “But the Freedoms are and should be Freedoms”.
—
† That right is of course limited: My right to keep the recipe secret is not absolute. I have to adhere to certain health and safety regulations, being able to keep the recipe secret does not override those regulations.
We can't really interact with ice cream on a higher level than would an animal, which is fine, that's all it's for. But software is a tool, and we learn from and improve our tools; that's what makes us human rather than mere consumers.
No, I can't. I fundamentally don't understand why you would keep source code secret, why you would deny me the right to change it or to redistribute copies. It's utterly incomprehensible to me.
On the contrary, I believe the burden of proof as to why we should deny people these Freedoms lies on the side of the advocates or proprietary software, and thus far I haven't seen any compelling argument.