I know you established a permission system: It's yours, and it should be up to you who gets access to the crate, even for copying. From your point of view there is a violation of that system.

My point of view is: why would you make people ask for permission for benefiting from the same things as you, with no adittional cost to anyone? Why would you prefer less people to benefit from the same effort?

If I had one crate that I created with my effort, and someone came and copied it to get one for themselves without making any effort, I do not have any reason not to let them, apart from envy/pettiness (not wanting someone to have the same stuff as me while making less effort).

No one took my crate, I still have the same result after having spent the same effort/time/money on them.

A more direct example: Do you, after opening a door, let the person behind you pass along? Or do you slam the door shut against their face?

Microsoft wanted to "own" operating systems. Copyrighted command names and concepts.
Now countless servers run on Linux.

Oracle wanted to "own" an SQL engine (MySQL). After being licensed and paywalled (Oracle DB) it was forked into MariaDB, free to use by anyone. Many companies switched from the oracle "owned" engine to the free one.

There are many examples of the same pettiness problem: People wanting to own a concept or idea, originally theirs or not, and gatekeep it for everyone else. And it always ends the same way: Others will implement the same idea and offer its true value (the service/product) to the world. And trying to stop it, trying to stop ideas from flowing from brain to brain, is completely impossible.

Taking your example in account:
RedHat doesn't win money by "owning" and "selling" RedHat (the OS, the code, the linux implementation) but by offering their infrastructure and service. They offer teams of people that know the system and handle support. They offer computing infrastructure.

Code is language, a representation of ideas. Infinitely reproductible with nullable cost. People doesn't/shouldn't buy or sell ideas.

If I had countles wooden crates and it did not cost me anything (not time nor materials nor money) to create an infinite more... Why wouln't I let you take as many as you want from my inventory?

Wanting consequences for someone who did something that doesn't affect you at all (like duplicating something yours: no one loses anything) just for the sake of it is just selfish and petty.

Cost of opportunity does not apply to ideas. Amazon, Google, Microsoft... They don't win money just by "owning" ideas, but by having the means and infrastructure to execute them as a service for people and companies that don't want to create it themselves.

You are not going to get money from owning an idea. No one is going to pay you for something that isn't even a prototype, and big companies will just create a legally-defendable copycat and deploy it on their infra. And this can be applied to music, writing, art... Etc.

Copyright, licensing and intellectual property exist only for protecting big rich companies, not inventors. In order to detect infringements and legally pursue "thiefs" you need huge detection and legal infrastructures aimed at the small individual. The companies that really benefit from using intellectual property without permission will just do it and afford the consequences. (Like it's happening with AI)

Thinking everything AI makes is bad is as dumb as thinking everything made by AI is good/better.

Code / ideas / texts / songs cannot be stolen, as nobody should own a concept/idea or its digital (reproductible without cost) representation.

"Only WE can spy on our users"

Good luck proving I know 24 words!!

This is what I'm afraid of. Bitcoin is a direct threat to bankers and the state. The same people that live like gods using our money is NOT going to let that go, and they WILL be capable of anything to keep being the elite.

Still, a bit far fetched in my opinion. Price not always reflects actual value/performance. Even if the price had gone up the OP_RETURN cap raise would still be an attack to the protocol

Indeed, the best way of implementing btc onchain zaps is not using btc for onchain zaps