Thank you for the kind words.

There is no contradiction between support for the four software freedoms and opposition to so-called intellectual property.

Property (whether we think of it as natural or conventional) protects people's exclusive control over scarce resources. Sequences of words are not scarce. If I tell you "bananas are yellow" and you repeat "bananas are yellow" we now both have the idea "bananas are yellow" without any deprivation or violation of anything. If, however, you have a banana and I take your banana, now I have a banana but you do not have a banana. In this latter banana-taking case, you have been deprived of a banana, a theft happened, your right to that banana was violated.

There are many things in the internet infrastructure that are indeed scarce. Machines, bandwidth, CPU cycles, RAM, storage, data centers, network switches, spectrum, and more are all scarce. Those are scarce property. The exact bits and bytes that traverse those scarce resources are not themselves property.

One might be able to argue that copyleft is anti-property in that it uses false property "rights" in its scheme. I mean it gains its power from unjust copyright privileges that are grants from the state. But copyleft is a clever reversal of that same unjust privilege so I don't have a problem with it. Regardless of the mechanism, the only just use of violence is in defense against aggression. An unjust violation of my actual property, such as my computer, by way of the unjust mechanism of state-granted copyright privilege gets corrected using that same mechanism. If we eliminate copyright privileges, that would also work fine, but given the state copyright privilege mechanism, copyleft is pretty clever.

One might object that developers need to make money for their services. Fair. Another scarce resource is software engineers and their time. Figuring out who should pay and how within a freedom paradigm is an ongoing area of research. But objecting to a glass-blowing machine that can do a thousand times the bulbs of a human artisan glass-blower on the grounds that glass-blowers need to make money is the old fallacy about the curse of machines. See Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson on this. In other words, we don't start with the way the world works today and then assume that that is all right and fair to argue against a potentiall disruption, we first figure out the truth and then try to conform the world to the truth.