I didn't mean to talk about software freedoms, although I completely agree with you. But if you want my opinion, I think developers who want to license their software under a permissive license, just want their software to be as popular as possible, making it available for either free as in freedom or proprietary projects, thus, from my perspective, doing a pact with the devil in order to gain popularity at the cost of freedoms for many of the users of the permissive licensed software, which, in fact, accomplishes devil's long-term goals. Allowing a small amount of developers distributing their software freely, and I mean freely as BSD guys like to call it, permissively, although also enables FLOSS communities to make use of those products, feeds a terrible monster that has poisoned our whole society to the point of almost no return by transforming the effort put into a project meant to be free into less effort vampiric companies must put allowing them to focus more on morally and ethically intolerable practices that would only benefit them, (and maybe the developers of the original FLOSS project who might even have been tempted to accept the license they chose in order to gain a higher position or probability in their search for money and profitable companies, in fact, the clear decadence of the human being), and put innocent users under a restrictive reality, in the end, making the value of the harm made by that wrong decision of licensing be potentially much higher than the value obtained from allowing FLOSS communities distribute, copy and improve the code respecting everybody's ethical and moral rights, as stated by the 4 freedoms. I do think that for some cases, permissive licenses are fine, for example, I tend to license my scripts under permissive licenses as I just care zero about what happens to those 10-50 lines code programs and as happens with scripts, everyone wants to modify them to fit their needs and I definitely don't want to ask them the code back because what they did to the code mostly only benefits them but not me. And it think, for what I read on the gnu or fsf site, permissive licensing must be a good idea for the case of libraries.
I didn't want to talk about this, I don't know why you brought up the topic. When I was citing RMS I didn't mean to hurt you. I respect a lot Richard and his principles, but I used that sentence as great part of the Linux (and other operating systems) community uses it, as a meme originated from an old man yelling at them for not respecting the work he made 40 years ago, AS that is how BSD and many Linux users see what RMS says, and that's why I said BSD guys will be mad for that, as that, what I just explained, is what they first think when they hear that sentence.
This is the Artwork room, I guess it was my bad at the first place to mention anything not related to this specific topic.