🇳🇱
Sorry you were insulted, I do not approve of that.
It sounds like you are describing libertarianism (local government has all the power, federal governments dont exist other than as a coalition and is voluntary)... libertarianism isnt anarchism, it sounds like your just mixing up terms.
> So, are free license like GPL, MIT ok?
Are you asking me what is "ok" as in, a good thing to have, or what is compatible with various forms of economics and governments, they are two very different things.
Anarchism doesnt dictate what is ok or what isnt.. It just garuntees no one will ever be coerced into doing anything they dont want to and can never force someone to do something they dont want to. Everything else is free game.
So from an anarchism perspective open source licneses cant exist regardless if they are "ok" or not, because they coerce people to follow the terms of the license.
> Without them people could use the code and make them proprietary, which would coerce users.
how would that coerce users? They couldnt make it propritary in the typical sense under an anarchism either. In other words, they could not render an EULA that said "you are not allowed to make copies of this and give it away".. such an EULA could not exist in an anarchism anymore than an open-source license could.
What a programmer **can** do in an anarchism however is compile their software, never distribute the source code in the first place, and add DRM to their software so if a user tried to give the software away for free they would find they would be unable to. They can then charge people for it. THAT would be compatible with anarchism since no one is being coerced, I am simply offering to sell you some bytes that you would have a hard time redistributing, your welcome to try, but im welcome to put in measures to prevent you...
So it would effectively be proprietary, but again not the form your used to seeing, and not enforced by license.
