

The ideas we explore in concrete work should be informed by what open source licensing proponents seek to restrict (the individual freedom to refuse), the tools they employ (software licensing), the language they attempt to monopolize (“Free as in Freedom”), and what the established systems and cultural norms do in practice
The article doesnt use the wording “Free Software Movement” it uses “open source licensing proponents” which includes the Free Software Movement.
As for the genocide per default part: Its nonsense to believe that if open source didnt exist or was different that it would somehow lead to less genocide.
no NTSYNC still :(