Compare Revisions
Showing 1 commit
Ancestor: 26def8538a10
1 2015-04-03 01:18:39
1a7de6ba649d princip
Modify sentence that oversimplifies notion of completeness of software freedom. In reality the FSF (as chief guardians of what the definition of free software is) and the larger Free Software community have tolerated certain kinds of restrictions on software freedom. One example, called out in my change to this sentence, is that of copyleft requirements. To arch lax-permissive-license advocates copyleft requirements may be an undue restriction on software freedom, but the larger Free Software community considers copyleft (at least within limits recognized by the FSF) to be a tolerable deviation from maximum software freedom for a given user. In the case of copyleft, the justification is that the constraints on that user allow software freedom to be maximized among the larger set of present and future users.
1 file changed with 3 insertions and 1 deletions:
↑ Collapse Diff ↑
gpl-lgpl.tex | tip tip
@@ -137,7 +137,9 @@ prerequisite to make use of the freedom to modify.  However, the important
137 137
issue is what freedoms are granted in the license that applies to that source code.
138 138

139 139
Software freedom is only complete when no restrictions are imposed on how
these freedoms are exercised.  Specifically, users and programmers can
these freedoms are exercised, other than certain conditions customarily
considered compatible with software freedom (such as copyleft requirements
designed to maximize software freedom for the greater number of users).  Specifically, users and programmers can
141 143
exercise these freedoms noncommercially or commercially.  Licenses that grant
142 144
these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial
143 145
activities are considered non-free.  The Open Source Initiative