It's a personal feeling about the purpose of the license, not about the people who are using the license.

I read it as being personal at first but on second read interpreted the “antithetical” comment to reference the issue that they were breaking the license and limiting the users freedom.

I meant that my comment was a personal feeling about the license, and not about any particular users or violators of the license.

The post says "we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour", and that is clearly not a criticism of just the nature of the license violation, but the people who are violating it.

Can’t a generous person who chooses to give away something (on the condition that anyone who chooses to accept this gift does the same) criticise the character of those who take advantage of this kindness for their own personal financial gain?

And? It's their website, they can criticise whoever they like on it.

I think this is a tu quoque fallacy.

In my view, it is OK to invoke personal feelings about whether personal feelings should be invoked in relation to the enforcement of a software license.

This isn’t a fallacy because I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal.

For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat.

>I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal.

You're going further than that, though, aren't you? You're impliedly suggesting they're a hypocrite. You're doing that to cast doubt on whether it's correct to invoke personal feelings when enforcing software licences by saying they are invoking personal feelings themselves when discussing that issue.

I suggest to you that this is an argument, and a blatant fallacy.

>For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat

In your example, if you used the fact that someone who said red meat was bad ate red meat in support of the proposition that it is not bad to eat red meat, that would be a perfect example of the fallacy.

> I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal.

Why would you suggest that, rp1? This is a place to discuss things. Our beliefs about appropriate ways to publicize license disputes are part of that.

I’m suggesting it because you said that personal beliefs should be kept personal. Similar to how if someone eating steak told me steak was unhealthy, I would advise them to stop eating steak. I read what you originally wrote, assumed it was true, and pointed out a logical inconsistency.