isn't the person who used SICP character names as handles for their public repo. That's the charm of anonymous discussions. Never assume the identity of a post number.
By exactly the same logic, in an anonymous discussion any poster may choose to assume a new identity whenever this is convenient. Never assume that a repudiation of a post is automatically factual.
under MIT, and still, modifications have been shared
I'm sure you understand the difference between choosing to do something and having to do something. For example, every company that used GPLv2 may have chosen to respect both the letter and the spirit of GPLv2, so that GPLv3 never became necessary. But that is a rose-tinted fantasy world. In the world we actually live in they followed the letter but broke with the spirit and intent, so GPLv3 became necessary to close some loopholes that allowed this.
For instance you should trust [...]
You need to recall the meaning of "rebuke" >>56 and actually read my rebuke to Anon, already linked above:
https://textboard.org/prog/39#t39p44
That was presumptuous and rude. Bitdiddle has explained the logistical difficulties that cause the current situation.
a terrible pessimism about human nature
Perhaps you need a refresher on how the world works:
https://paste.textboard.org/a8d8709a/raw
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/28/trafficked-india-red-light-districts
>>58
By your peculiar definition of "free" no one would have to contribute modifications back to the programming community at large.
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.This is from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html. This has nothing to do with the people who benefit from your free software being required to contribute back. It does have to do with you voluntarily freeing your software to others.