I stand by the position that all this doesn't seem very restrictive though. I don't think the GPL could have been without a risk of making some legitimate cases litigious or something.

I suppose forcing a means to share the source code could have been too restrictive, but the GPL only speaks about the shape of the source code itself (it should be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"), not how it is shared, so indeed, not a violation of the letter of the GPL I think.

It's like what we had in France and the Hadopi, which requested ISPs to share the IP addresses of people torrenting a defined set of files. One of them sent them printed on paper... (But the malicious compliance was cool in this case).

(However, that's quite orthogonal to being a dick about making the source code that you must share available)

I would receive some messages twice for some time, as people resent their mails to the new address

Things sorted themselves out without much effort. But indeed, it took at least a year or two.

Yeah, I don't think that's a good reason neither. Now, it not being a good reason is not a pass to act against her will either.

I think OP needs to convince her that it's a bad reason first.

> That's because 'I want to die' is a valid reason. Or at least it should be

That's a very reasonable reason not to want to take a pill, but that's not even necessarily the actual reason. Often the reason is completely unknown. Possibly the person refusing the pills doesn't really know why they are refusing it / doesn't even have good reasons. The actual reasons behind the refusal doesn't theoretically matter much in whether they should be forced to take the pills. They should only matter to convince them that they should take the pill for their own good. (the reality is probably more "dirty" than that though)

> simply acting against autonomy is itself bad within their framework, but this is inconsistent with society's behaviour at large.

Possibly, but, depending on what you mean:

* society at large acting against autonomy isn't necessarily a good thing / a good justification for doing it. Society at large needs a fix.

* fighting fire with fire is not necessarily the right approach

Okay, that's what you probably implied in your first reply, and I think that's what's actually interesting to discuss.

I don't think not acting against someone's will is a question of mere politeness. In social care, it's often considered mistreatment to do so.

For instance if it is not considered that an adult who's not otherwise autonomous can't express consent and doesn't want to take their pills, social workers normally shouldn't (and legally can't) force them to take them, even if it's good for them.

At least where I live.

Not all act against someone's will is mistreatment, but it definitely goes beyond politeness.

> In context, me saying 'You can just do that' means 'You should do that'

That's not very consistent. You wrote that whether they should was another question.

> (barring there being good reason, which I haven't seen so far)

I disagree with you. Someone being autonomous is a good reason for not wanting to take a decision for them against their will.

It follows that:

> It's still used by some people to close doors and remove options without good reason

This didn't happen here. No doors were closed without a good reason, because there is one.

> because they are stupid and evil

Yes, that was the intended meaning (evil, not stupid - on the contrary, I think that's very clever). With this I'm not qualifying small companies that bought into the FUD, but big corps that don't like that they cannot just take AGPL code and make others scared of the AGPL for no good reasons.

There's nothing toxic in the AGPL for you as long as you don't want to make that code proprietary (even without making profits)

They just choose avoid agpl software. Their loss. Unfortunately they also spread FUD on this and many commenters here happily convey it.

Like, because of a disability, or because you don't have a smartphone? In the latter case, would it work to just go to the bank with a dumb phone?

I've read somewhere that some banks will let you use their SMS 2FA as long as you haven't already used their mobile app.

Using uBlock Origin with cookie consent modal filters is way better (but causes breakage at times).

    document.body.style.color = "pink";