If you want to play in someone elses sandbox with their toys, you gotta follow their rules. Like, this is society and contracts 101, I get it that no one likes it when it cuts against the group that happen to like, but its fair, and right there in the terms of the license.

So there's an obligation for developers of free software to provide it to people who don't adhere to the licenses in question? Interesting take. Who else do you obligate to free work?

Just because he's a "politician" doesn't mean he can violate the license.

Okay, now do the Vizio suit.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

Straight up persecution... of people who violate software licenses.

I think I understand the spirit of your complaint, but I'm not sure what concrete changes you would support. Are you arguing that the GPL3 license is a poor reflection of open source ideals? Or that the license should provide exemptions for politicians? Or that violating the license should be protected as free speech?

How does sharing code silence him?

If the politician wants to silence the spread of free code I think it's about right that the free software movements fights back.

Do you think that just because someone is a politician they should be given a completely and totally unlimited freedom to do and say whatever they want? What if you're a politician literally running a platform based on genocide? On taking away voting rights from women? On bringing back child labour? On making slavery legal? Should every platform be forced to host you and your views? Or is there a line where you'd go "ok, yeah, actually I can agree with this".

Because if there is a line anywhere, then I don't see how you can still hold a view that free software should always support everyone and their beliefs, politicians or not.