🇳🇱
No where in the statement you just quoted did I claim it was "no rules"...
Anarchism by definition means that it is not permitted for a hierarchy to exist in which an individual can be coerced to do or not do anything they do not want. That is the defining quality of anarchism. To quote wikipedia on the definition of anarchism:
> Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is sceptical of authority and rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy.
So that means rules are allowed, but **only** rules that outlaw one person coercing another in some way. It is this reason murder can be illegal in an anarchism (it is a rule), because murder is the ultimate coercion of someone (you are forcing someone to be dead who doesnt want to be).
By this fundemental definition of anarchism, however, it also means that you can not issue licenses for yoursoftware as doing so would coerce the users of that software to have to following your rules, creating the two things anarchism is against: a hierarchy (you as the rule maker) and coercion (the terms of the license).
Therefore in an anarchism a person would be well within their rights to ignore any open-source license and use the software however they please, so long as they dont use it to coerce other people.
@freemo Doctor Freemo, How do you counter with someone who disagrees with the idea that wikipedia is a legitimate source of knowledge? So far as I can see, this kind of skepticism does have some point, not only because the editors of wikipedia may not qualify for the task, but also because wikipedia is getting more politicized than ever. In fact the problem is not limited to wikipedia, all the major institutions, the media, the academy, the ones who were supposed to reveal and pursue the truth, have all lost their credibility, and along with it the public trust. Even the very notion of objective reality itself has been under vicious attacks from these institutions supposedly protecting them. While I feel sorry for people buying into the fake stories promoted by certain politicians and writers, I can understand the deeper reason why they are behaving that way, because who is there to trust when the mainstream media and academy no longer care about the truth and are campaigning against you?
I think all this boils down to this question: In this ultra politicized world when the old authorities have become fraudulent and corrupt, how do we prove that those external sources we invoke are legitimately true? would that take too much effort? Yes, the task always falls on the individual to use his own reason and independent thinking to decide what is true, but our energy are limited and, we don't have so much time to define every concept or prove the credibility of our invoked external sources.
