[flagged]

Don't disagree, however, the article's tone is mechanical and also sounds... let's say... fluffy to me.

AI or not, I stopped after this series of paragraphs failed to get to the point, indulging in flowery rehash of thoughts already discussed ad nauseam.

> Now, every act of giving is treated with suspicion. The gift of openness is no longer trustworthy on its own. The receivers of free software want to know how the gift came to be. Is it pure, or was it made with dirty machinery?

> In the case of the latter, some especially angry, would-be recipients won't just ignore the giver and forego the gift, they'll attack the giver with the fervor of someone who has themselves been attacked, apparently by the voluntary offer on hand.

> The anger is justified, but the target is tragically misguided