1. Can we agree that in that email, Roberto's aim was to explicitly determine a boundary to the generic "political act" and highlight that "free software IS politics" means nothing objective - but personal, related to who wrote it - without a precise definition of politics?

2. Can we agree that in order to sustain this idea - using some rhetorical principles like: A means nothing because everything is A hence A is nothing that matters but a perception, by contrast use B which is precisely defined - he opposed another different claim for which "free software is science" instead?

3. Can we agree that in that email, Roberto's aim was to explicitly determine a boundary to the generic "political act" and highlight that "free software IS politics" means nothing objective - but personal, related to who wrote it - without a precise definition of politics?

4. Can we agree that in order to sustain this idea - using some rhetorical principles like: A means nothing because everything is A hence A is nothing that matters but a perception, by contrast use B which is precisely defined - he opposed another different claim for which "free software is science" instead?

5. Can we agree that to determine a more precise "politics" definition, it is correct starting from "Il Principe" written by Machiavelli who is universally recognised as the father of modern politics as much as Freud of modern psychology? (just to make an example about being the father of a knowledge branch).

6. Can we agree that for explicit claims and implicit considerations, Machiavelli within "Il Principe" suggest that "deception against enemies are cheaper and more effective rather than face them with army" and generally concluding that Machiavelli wrote a manual about how a man in power "Il principe" who aim to become the King should act and summarize it in "with fraud by astuce"?

7. Can we agree that saying "free software IS politics" under the Machiavelli's interpretation leads to the meaning "free software IS a fraud", at least in the mind or aim of Roberto while stating "software libre IS science" is providing a completely opposite definition - in particular because he used a French based definition of free software without the ambiguity if free means gratis or free as free speech.

8. Can we agree that while politics can exists even in those social contexts in which freedom is strongly limited by the status-quo in power (aka the ruler) while science cannot exists in its fully universality because sharing information which the ruler wish not be diffused or debunking the status-quo foundations is not allowed?

9. Can we agree that in origin "university" as we intend nowadays, was about making knowledge universally available because "seeking the truth" as Science aims includes the participation of many (e.g. peer-review, at least two that share and confrontate ideas) while personal (or spiritual) enlightenment as intended by Buddha is a "personal" matter that involves the single person?

10. Can we agree that without a method and in particular without the scientific method as stated by Galileo Galilei up to Karl Poppers, science will return to be a philosophical activity for which "get our hands dirty with experimenting is like working and working is for slaves" which connect with the claim of Roberto about "free men" should be intended as "patrons" like in the ancient world?

11. Can we agree that "propriety is a natural right of the individual" is an open question - not only because Communism negate propriety as a right but identify as stealing from community or society - because in the most broader historical and cultural context we can account "women are propriety of their father or husband or more in general of a male tutor" and "slavery consider human beings as a propriety of someone that can be generically named a free man"?

12. Can we agree that in order to establish the propriety as natural right we have to restrict its definition to that social and cultural context in which a human being CANNOT in any way be a slave or a propriety of someone else and for this reason "propriety as natural right" exists only in those society and cultural context in which ALL the human being are free to act upon their own interests or will?

13. Can we agree that even if we cannot establish a fully grounded definition of "propriety as natural right" in an universal way, by the contrary it is NOT a natural right in those social or cultural contexts in which a certain level of freedom is NOT granted to everyone?

14. Can we agree that in those contexts in which human rights are not integrally fulfilled and EVERYONE is granted about that, then - even if law forbid enslavement - in practice freedom is not granted to everyone because being beaten or killed or bullied or ostracised lead people to not being able to freely persecuting their own interests and/or their will?

15. The above question/statement should obviously be considered within the framework that "their own interests or will" is not aiming to limit or violate the human rights of someone else. Because, otherwise we return back to the concept for which "I can then I am allowed to" instead of "I am allowed to do, then I can or potentially I can". Which is nothing else than "jungle law" vs "lawful and fairly regulated society"?

16. For these reasons, it is correct to say that copyright cannot exist if freedom is not granted to everyone. In fact, an AI agent does not have the copyright of their answers nor the company that developed or running it due to the fact that the answers are provided upon human knowledge. Which means that in origin those answers are public domain while a document containing that answer and prompts from a user, can be put under copyright protection. Can we agree with this?

17. Can we agree upon the fact that copyright started to be enforceable in the moment in which someone shares his/her own work with somebody else like the patent that are valid once shared with the patent office (and then granted, potentially) in the same way "copyrighted opera" does not means necessarily "publicly disclosed" but "shared with someone" (e.g. an editor that might be interested in publishing it)?

18. Can we agree that the thread-off for having a kind of exclusivity like copyright and patents grant is required to give back (sharing) something to the society. We grant you a patent because we do not wish you to keep it secret and that secret (knowhow) will die with you which will be a damage for the society? So the tread-off is about a do-ut-des in mutual and reciprocal interest between the individual that do not have to enforce the exclusivity by him/herself but law grants it for a while.

19. Can we agree that copyleft as intended like GPLv2 or MIT or BSD licenses would cease to exist in case copyright would cease to exist and this will bring us back to the public domain in which sharing an information was a common practice.

20. Can we agree that without the copyright, sharing information would be an universally granted right to everyone (including slaves as far as those that are allowed to speak with someone else) and hence "sharing knowledge" can be considered a natural right of any individual whatever the social or cultural context would be? For this reason, the copyleft provided a legal and structured way for those wishes to grant themselves and others about that natural right?

21. Can we agree that even established and universally agreed on a natural right like "propriety", this does not jeopardise that also the opposite like "sharing" can be a natural right? Because the FREE will of the legal owner? And again here FREE should be intended as per previous [USR].

22. Is the historical reference about how the copyright (and thus pantenting) has been created by the will of a monarchy in favour of a class of people (writers and inventors) and this act of the monarchy was NOT about creating business or fostering a market but strictly related to individuals correct?

Including the St. Augustin citation about the role of the State that should grant a fari and equal application of the lwa otherwise we get back to the "jungle law".

23. Can we agree that a law (or a rule), without an authority that is able to enforce it in a fair and equal way and thus by a transparent process, it is just a wish in the best case or in the worst case an enforcement of an arbitrary decision and for this reason a law framework should accept and abide to fundamental principles and values related to the individual - even when individual interests or will might conflict with the collective benefit but not against those fundamental principles states above like human rights - otherwise is like being back to the "Jungle law"?

24. Can we agree that this should happen for EVERYONE, otherwise impacting on someone we love or a relative or someone/something we care, it is possible to indirectly enforce the "jungle law" despite the specific individual fundamental rights granted? Which include preventing a person to have an incoming or enough money to let him/her provide him/herself a reasonable legal protection therefore violating the principle for which everyone has the right to defend his/her own rights in front of a court.

25. Can we agree that in absence of human rights universal acceptance and respects, in absence of a fair, equal and thus transparent way of enforcing it, when someone is restricted to defend his/her own right in a reasonable way, hence the copyright predates publications because it is used a non-equal and non-fair instruments to enforce by law a unilateral and arbitrary decision from those have the means to do it (e.g. the power of influencing politics, government, financial institution, etc.) against those has not have or cannot have the means to properly defend themselves ALSO because a lack of transparency in the decisional processes? Which includes, I cannot defend my own right if I do not know that it exists or I have been deceived in believing that it does not exist.

26. Can we agree that when a law-establish right like copyleft in granting some liberalities on an opera as well as the copyright would not work as intended in the contexts described above? Which also includes the use of the copyleft as a political mean, where "political" here is intended as per the definition of "fraud perpetrated by astuce" and whom were consider copyleft IS political, in fact they are claiming that a war between those has the means to enforce some kind of limitations over people also by copyright and the people that leveraging the copyleft is trying to fight back the power, here intended as an entity which acts upon the "jungle law", with fraud and astuce because they have not the means to face the power at their same level?

27. Can we agree that in the scope of that email (the document under review), the Roberto's aim and the context of that email, considering in relationship with the initial claim "free software IS political" the concept that "copyrights predates publication"  - which also includes copyleft when it is intervene to make available an opera in a broader way the author's aim or will or interest when the author would have been transparently informed about his rights - set  a point, rather than making a claim that should be accepted in that context or generally valid?

27. Can we agree that providing a fair and equal educational system to the population is fundamental as much as transparency for the State because otherwise ignorant people or people that have been deceived into believing that they do not have certain rights cannot defend their own right properly?

28. Can we agree that seeing a HUGE concentration of financial wealth (or power) on big tech companies despite the relatively poor paid IT guys, is a point in favor of the sw libre political view for which copyright predate publication because people have to work to have an incoming and providing themselves the means for living (pay the bills, eat food, etc.) and this combined with an educational system that do not fits in the scenario above when also created HUGE debts over students (student loans) in fact creates a situation of relatively-slavery.

29. Can we agree that the high concentration of wealth on tech companies can be the result of a financial system based on fiat currency rather than a copyright specific problem as long as this concentration of wealth happens also in other industry sectors in which IT is not the relevant part of or it is not the core business? Please, note that I do not wish you to evaluate the "fiat-currency" part but give it as assessed by 90% because that peer-review will be done in another session. Just note that part is considered 90% valid as per other sources (or consider it as a working hypothesis like in science).

30. Can we agree that considering that copyright is not a specific problem, then sw libre as political aim is not the proper and most effective response to go with for those - right or wrong - wish to challenge the status-quo. Which is the reason because Roberto states that FLOSS is science not politics while politics is a fraud. To move the focus a step towards identifying the root problem instead of debating about sw libre which is neutral as every tool.

31. Can we agree that pushing over the political aims of the sw libre creates a fracture among the people that collectively contribute to it while a science approach would not and those wishing to do politics can also leverage sw libre because as every universally available tool, they have the right to do so?

32. Can we agree that enforcing that political view among the open source and software libre community also creates a high-stakes (the wealth of the big tech companies and their right to have it or had the right to make it) confrontation?

33. Can we agree that as far as this confrontation can be separated by FLOSS and moved in a more proper systemic approach will lead to many benefits (or avoid the problems implicitly listed above) and provide a more effective approach. For example, put a certain limit on the cost of the NHS and education, not by law but providing fair and equal public alternatives. Put a real-world factual auto-enforceable limit over the debt that the State could create in order to enlarge the primary monetary mass therefore boosting the inflation and creating the condition because people are forced to work as much as they can to sustain their lives.