Title: Need nuanced explanation of "no restrictions" in defining completeness of software freedom
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.
Under review
1 reviewer
git pull https://k.copyleft.org/guide-fontana princip
2014-12-07 05:00:27
Richard Fontana (fontana)
fontana@sharpeleven.org
Git pull requests don't support updates yet.
Pull Request Reviewers
  • Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn)
2 comments (0 inline, 2 general)
Showing 1 commit
1 2015-04-03 01:18:39
fontana
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.
Common ancestor: 26def8538a10
1 file changed with 3 insertions and 1 deletions:
↑ Collapse Diff ↑
gpl-lgpl.tex | master princip
...
 
@@ -134,13 +134,15 @@ Software'',\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software
134 134
 
 those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side
135 135
 
issue.  Specifically, user access to the source code of a program is a
136 136
 
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
140
 
these freedoms are exercised.  Specifically, users and programmers can
140
 
these freedoms are exercised, other than certain conditions customarily
141
 
considered compatible with software freedom (such as copyleft requirements
142
 
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
144 146
 
(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also regards
145 147
 
such licenses as inconsistent with its ``Open Source Definition''.
146 148
 

	
Richard Fontana (fontana)
2 years and 7 months ago on pull request "Need nuanced explanation of "no restrictions" in defining completeness of software freedom"

Status change: Under review

Auto status change to Under Review
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "Need nuanced explanation of "no restrictions" in defining completeness of software freedom"
My first instinct was to say that this point oughtn't be made. The description is convincing of the need for this change, though. I think that the point being made should be moved to a following paragraph, though. I think it interrupts the intro of Freedom 0 just as it's gaining momentum. Also, I would replace "compatible with software freedom" with "to improve, rather than detract from, software freedom for all users". That may eliminate the need for the parenthetical.
2 comments (0 inline, 2 general)