@xianc78 @bonkmaykr >he was talking about privacy and saying that free software was the only solution.
He was clearly speaking about network computer software and free software is the only solution to that.

>I know for sure that something like an old NES ROM wasn't going to spy on me,
That is only the case because it was impossible to at the time - they developers could have added spyware, they would have.

>Stallman would say that was bad anyway.
Software without the 4 freedoms is always bad.

>keep people divided and isolated by prohibiting people to share. Except it doesn't.
A proprietary license gives you the choice of either obeying the law and not distributing, or breaking the law and distribution it.

In many cases, especially where enforcement is effective, this prevents sharing.

There is no case where you are prohibited from sharing free software.

>Never in my life have I lost friends because I couldn't copy a piece of software and give it to them.
Yes, proprietary software gives you the choice between obeying the law and making your friends unhappy or breaking the law and making your friends happy.

This is very bad state - you should be able to make your friends happy while also obeying the law - that is what free software is about.

>I'm not a fan of "intellectual property"
The fact you give credibility to something that doesn't exist is a case of you being a fan of it.

>there are plenty of examples of proprietary software that has proven not to be malware
How you are forbidden from exercising the 4 freedoms is malicious enough.

>We also have decompilations of old games now and we can see for a fact that they never included any backdoors, even some of those that were released more recently.
Oh wow, those didn't contain backdoors, how generous.

Often such games are obfuscated to prevent the user from learning, which is an evil.

>Was Daisuke "Pixel" Amaya evil for releasing Cave Story as proprietary freeware?
Yes he was evil - the decision to make it proprietary and also obfuscate the files to restrict freedom 1 further was an evil act.

He wasn't even out to get money, so he could be moral and released it as free software (and maybe asked for donations), but he didn't.

>He was making something that he loved and probably never even heard of the FSF
If he really loved it, he would set it free.