Slashdot Mirror
FSF updates Free Software definition
Mark Wielaard writes "The FSF has updated their definition of Free Software.
It now says something about the freedom to actually run the program
for any purpose, the freedom to redistribute copies to anyone, anywhere
(export restrictions) and how those freedoms should be irrevocable
(license termination).
"
But there is the distinction between the knowledge that is published and the process which is patented. I like RMS's model even better for research (if you publish, you can't patent).
No, I don't believe copying is an issue because copying software means giving someone access to it. There is no access problem for published research because there are lots of decent academic libraries (and these days IEEE will even let you order reprints of articles on-line for a small fee). The fact that they are tightly bound in copyrighted journals prohibits no-one from making copies for FAIR USE, i.e., education or more research. Making a packet for your classroom is just a matter of convenience for the students (they could march up in droves to the library and make their own copies) but doesn't impact upon the freedom of access.
It is certainly permissable to link GPL'd code with code under a different license. Otherwise how would GPL'd and LGPL'd code exist? The other code simply cannot add additional restrictions. I hope you don't claim that free software has to allow linking with code under any license. In that case only public domain software would qualify.
Using free software is not, of course, going to legalize things that are currently illegal. "Yeah, I posted kiddie porn on the 'net, but I processed the pictures with the GIMP, and its license says I can do whatever I want," isn't going to cut it with the FBI, obviously...
On the flip side, though, things that are legal should not become illegal because of the software you used to do it. For example, if you're normally allowed to create an image or document and sell it, it should not become illegal because the graphics editor or word processor you used doesn't allow commercial use...
Posted by Mike@ABC:
OK, first impressions suck. Glad everyone chipped in to clarify. I'm glad I asked.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this definition dovetail a little better with what the Open Source Initiative is pushing? If so, then this is a good thing. If Stallman, Raymond and everybody else can agree on this definition (or another) and run with it, that can only be good.
I like it, but it's not like I write software. I write about software. What does everybody else think?
Linux today linked an article about 6 weeks ago where RMS was in asia, and was asked about pirated commercial software. I can't rembember the exact qoute, but it was something to the effect that what they (the software "pirates") were doing wasn't exactly in the spirit of free software, but it was still a good thing bringing software to people at a price that they could afford.
It seemed odd to me that RMS would even give a nod to anyone distributing software without source code.
Anyone have the link to this story?
TedC
While it's likely that all the hoopla over the APSL triggered this rewrite, it was a long time coming, and provides a useful framework for discussion of any particular licensing terms. Nothing I saw in it indicated an attempt to rule out the APSL per se; it all fit logically into the free software framework. The issue of restrictive laws (e. g. export controls) was handled sensibly; there is no good reason for any free software license to specifically incorporate these laws, since all contracts are implicitly governed by law.
The issue of forbidding a user from modifying a program for strictly private use (with no distribution) isn't quite what it looks. While it sounds like it should be in the spirit of free software to require even private modifications to be made publicly available, it would contravene the spirit of personal privacy that's necessary in any free society. Furthermore, it would be impossible to implement in practice.
At what point would the modifications have to be made public? As soon as the user has made any change at all? Taken to extremes, that would require that the user use a text editor that immediately modified the backing copy, and that the user always keep the source in a publicly available location (e. g. an anonymous ftp server). So one might then take a different tack, and say that it's as soon as the modified code "works". What's the definition of "work" here (remember, this is a license that binds as strictly as any other kind of license, and terms must be precisely defined)? That's not too hard for someone to get around; simply break something else and don't attempt to fix it.
This pedantry aside, the importance of a zone of privacy (which includes one's computing) is essential to a free society. The only issue is when software is distributed.
There is no concrete line between free and non-free, there are only degrees of freedom.
Yes, public domain code IS more free than GPL code. I know that the restrictions in the GPL are designed to safeguard the freedom of the users (especially users of derived works) but they are still restrictions.
IMHO it is up the author to decide what level of freedom to provide in his license. What I object to is the FSFs total conviction that they occupy some sort of moral high ground. Software released under a license which grants less freedom is judged "immoral" while software which grants more freedom is "misguided" or worse "fails to safeguard freedom".
LGPL has fewer restrictions that GPL, hence it is more free. Public domain is more free still. As an example of how these extra freedoms can benefit users, commercial companies take public domain code, add some extra functionality to make it useful and sell it to people. RMS calls this "freedom subtracted" software as opposed to "value added" (fair comment), but to non-programmers, an executable that does what you want is better than source code that doesn't.
I agree with FSF hierarchy of freedom, and I think more freedom is generally a good thing. I just wanted to point out that there were other levels besides the one's they defined. My take is that it is purely up to the author to decide what license to release code under. I almost never pay attention to arguments based on somebody else's interpretation of morailty.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
4. The freedom to link the software with code that is under a different license.
ie LGPL passes 1-4, GPL passes 1-3.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Free is free.
When you free a program, yes, you're absolving yourself of the right to prevent anyone using it for whatever purpose they so desire.
If someone uses Mutt to distribute kiddie porn, that's none of the Mutt team's business. It's the police's business, of course...
Now, consider if the mutt team decided to forbid mutt's use for child pornography. By omitting to forbid its use in drug dealing, couldn't they be accused of supporting drug dealing?
Best to remain neutral, and leave those issues to the people it concerns.
--
The reason they did this should be painfully obvious. They did it specifically so the APSL (and several other licenses) would violate the rules. I'd say RMS and the FSF still have whatever twisted grudge they once had against Apple.
I might add one thing, they state that a user should be able to modify the program and keep it to themselves, without even mentioning their existence to anyone else. Is this not, however, completely contrary to the idea of free software, where everyone contributes? I smell hypocrisy.
The FSF is basically his, or at least he's the figure head for it. He's got the right to make statements, you've got the right to ignore them or choose some license that fits your needs. That's freedom.
> without even mentioning their existence to anyone else
No, this makes a lot of sense. Say I fix a small annoyance for me, or even change the Makefile so that "make" installs as "gmake." I've just modified the software, should I be forced to publicize the fact and make this "modification" available to everybody? You could say you only have to give away "signifigant" changes, but how do you define signifigant? Also, if I'm in the middle of modifying some code which I plan to release back at some indeterminate point in the future, should I be required to make my changes available at every step of the way? In short, I think that as a "headache preventer" this is a good clause. There are also some good side effects of this(although "good" in this case is obviously a matter of opinion). HP has said that they have internal Linux and GCC ports running on Merced which they won't release until Merced is released. Chances are if they were required to release their internal work, they would never have started it until the chip was released.
I'm fine with RMS's clarifying his terminology, tho at this point I can't decide whether it sounds more like later Ayn Rand (in ONL etc.) or early L. Ron Hubbard.
He must not touch the words or language of the GPL or LGPL, though. This entire movement -- freely shared creative programming as anything but strictly a hobbyist category -- will sink into quicksand immediately if he does.
I do agree that the OSD should have an addition that the license must be irrevocable. When we wrote it, that situation simply had not come up.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I think this is a good indication that Free Software works. You just said somebody is making millions off it, even though others can "steal" it for free. So where is the complaint?
This is the kind of thing the FSF excells at and is one of the reasons why I'm grateful for their existance. The note was reasonable, well argued, and provides room for some diversity of opinion on which is the best liscense while providing a fairly clear benchmark about what is and isn't Free Software. ;-)).
I appreciated the levels of Freedom too, because they offer hooks to get non-programers commited to Free Software. I think the strictly Open Source POV misses out on this argument because it is primarily aimed at Programers and Bussinessmen (IMHO, of course
It's too bad so much acrimony gets stirred up when we really want the same things and we can all benefit from the diversity of opinion (or even just focus) that exists in the world. We won't all agree about every detail but I think we can live side by side if we are more careful of each other's feelings.
So it would be ok for me to decide that my name is "God", and insist that people address me as such when asking me questions?
Everybody has a freedom of opinion, but not the freedom that others comply with your opionion.
In your example, a questioner has the right to use the N-word, but since that word is widely held as a pejorative, the questioner would no doubt outrage most of the audience, not just the person he is addressing.
"Linux" is not held as a perjorative, except by an extreme element of the Free software community.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Your employer is paying you to write this. I don't know what you're being paid, but I think it would probably be fair to say several grand total.
Now, if you GPL it, your competitors can get the library for nothing, and use it in a similar product. This gives them a lower barrier to entry, which can hurt your employer in the long run.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
If demanding that people who ask questions at the GNOME release use GNU/Linux rather than Linux is not imposing his beliefs on people is not imposing, then I don't know what is.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
It's communist. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -Marx, "Software must be freely distributable so you can help your neighbor." -Stallman
Pure Communism is supposed to happen automatically (of course, it doesn't), not with a central authority enforcing it, like under Socialism. When asked "Isn't the government just a logical extension of the community?" in an interview, RMS replied, "Um, no, I don't think of the US government that way.". So I don't think Socialist is a good label for him.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
What? you don't want to start a consulting service for that game you've just written? :)
Seriously though, the only way to guarantee ROI is to charge thousands of dollars for the first few copies.
Also a service-based software industry will lead to poorly written software to guarantee service contracts.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I doubt that most self-respecting interviewers would though.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I may be wrong, but here's my understanding of how that would be viewed.
If a derivative of a GPL'd work was coded in that fashion, and only used internally, then the derivative is not GPL. Because it hasn't been released yet. When the author(s) decide to release their work, they have to do it under GPL, but not until then.
I don't think having your code stolen and made public could be considered a release. Regardless of the license involved. Even if it's a GPL derivative, the stolen code is not, because it hasn't been released by its author(s). It's been stolen.
It's stolen code, not a published/distributed work, and should probably be considered such. It should be the author(s) decision if and when to do that, and that fact shouldn't be negated if stolen and published by someone else, even if they are an employee.
I'm sure this view is full of technical errors, and I apologize if so. (I'm not a lawyer.) But I think I understand the basic priciples/intent behind the GPL, and I think you can at least see what I'm trying to point out.
Now, if the disgruntled employee IS the author, that's a completely different scenario. They can do what they want with it, but things might get a little uncomfortable at the workplace if they did.
What about if he/she is one of many authors?: That would be an ugly mess to figure out. I guess it be the same as if they were the sole author, only it would be akin to forking the code.
Interesting things to think about, though.
Marx may have popularized socialism, but he was by no means the definitive author of it. While RMS may lean into the communist camp, his basic philosophy has a great deal in common with socialist philosophy. It is socialist to the extent that he believes that their should be no private intellectual property. He also believes such a system can work. Either that, or he'd rather have a mediocre 'free' system, than a thriving restrictive one.
Weather or not Stallman advocates governmental enforcement of his philosophy is irrelevant to me. What I will say, is that for a man who believes in 'freedom', he says alot of stuff to the contrary. If he could have it his way, people would not be able to enter into contractual relations(licenses). I do not regard this as freedom. Neither do I see the ability of an individual to protect his source code as a detriment to society. The alternative, no protection, is much worse.
I think a pure 'free' software system would fail miserably. I think the system is fine just the way it is now. Both 'free' and commercial software can operate side by side uninhibited by one another, for the most part.
Free software simply doesn't exist for the same reasons that commercial software does. Free software exists for coders, by coders. It exists to 'scratch an itch', the developers itch. Commercial software exists to make money, the only way to do that is by filling customers needs. Where customers have needs, there is money, more often than not. Where there is money, there will be software.
The same can not be said for free software. Free software exists only at the pleasure of the coder. While there may on occassion be some intersection, between what the rest of the world wants and what the coder codes, it is slim by its very nature.
Can you name one piece of free software that meets the end users needs and wants, and does a better job of it than commercial software? While Linux is a great system, it is a system that appeals to a very small segment of the population, a segment which has a great deal in common with the coders. It is most certainly not intended to be easy to use or setup. Technical merits come before ease of use issues in linux. The whole recent wave of 'end userness' (user friendliness) in Linux is essentially a fad. The free software community desperately wants to prove itself, to slay the beast that is Microsoft. It is not a natural component. Nor is the flood of recently announced free end user applications. eg: Office suites, etc. How many free developers are really interested in weather or not Joe Executive can do his work under free software.
Anyhow, I dont have enough time to finish this thread....good bye
RMS doesn't represent America. No one does, but particularly not RMS. His very beliefs conflict with the entreprenuerial spirit which is heavily ingrained into american culture. If anything, France and other countries lean closer towards RMS' beliefs. It is essentially a socialist philosophy.
However, I agree with you. The whole freedom of software argument doesn't hold any water. Nothing I code on my own actually detracts from anyone's life. While my license or usage restrictions might be somewhat restrictive, you still have a choice. You can buy it, or you can find an alternative. If my 'restrictive' software simply didn't exist you would be no further along. In fact, I'd say free software would be no where if it weren't able to latch on to advances made by the commercial software industry. The free software alternatives come along slower. To RMS this may be preferable, having absolute freedom over the software he uses, even if that means that he doesn't get software as soon, if at all. This is simply not acceptable to me.
While it may a sys-admin may technically be called the end user, this is not the definition I intended. However, there are plenty of people who administrate systems who do not find text based interfaces an acceptable solution. This is why NT is winning over small offices. While I agree that Linux is vastly superior to NT, it is the software companies' ultimate duty to satiate the person who makes the purchasing decision.
Gnome is quite nice, but they're still behind the eight ball. RedHat is paying for this. They are technically a for profit company. While Gnome may be under GPL, continued work depends on the success of RedHat. Since Red Hat can not profit directly from the creation of Gnome, they are going to have to depend on their support and 'convience' operation growing. I have my doubts about both of these. If Linux matures, and Red Hat code becomes the standard, I assure you companies will come in and 'borrow' all of RedHat's GPLd code. All they'd have to do is stick it on CD, and write their own manual. The support thing is shaky.
Red Hat also does not have a great deal a capital. Given the fact that Gnome is driven 99% by RedHat's capital, how do you expect projects like these to compete with larger firms that have far larger profit margins.
"We have been accumulating components for this system since 1984"
GNU has never claimed to have "written" every part of the "GNU System". The GNU Project has always been about gathering together (and writing) free software into a complete, comprehensive free OS--an OS called the GNU system.
Linus Torvalds arrived in shining armor and contributed a free kernel. There is now a complete GNU system called GNU/Linux. There are also a bunch of other mostly free operating systems based on the Linux kernel (i.e. Redhat, Caldera, SuSe, etc), as well as others based on the BSD foundation.
Some of us remember when having a Unix system at home was either expensive (SCO) or useless (Coherent). We tend to appreciate the work the GNU project has done--both writing *and* gathering together--a system which is free in every sense of the word, not to mention their continued proclamation of the "freedom" ideology. It is also my opinion that the success of GNU/Linux, as well as the other Linux distributions, helped create the push within the BSD community to create a no-cost version of their OS. Before FreeBSD, I know of no BSD distribution that didn't cost money (please correct me if I'm wrong about that).
P.S.
To those on the BSD side of the fence, I intend no slight because I don't consider your license "free", but I agree with RMS's view that freedom of the user is more important than freedom of the developer. Thus, I want the stuff I use to be protected from usurpation, and the BSD license doesn't do that. I respect those who hold the BSD position, however.
I like to make the comparison between making money on free software and making money selling air.
Everybody has free access to air (obvious special cases aside). Yet there are plenty of companies that make some or all of their money selling it. None of them have a monopoly, anyone is free to go into the selling air business. None of it denies anybody free access to air. Some people have air filters or purifiers to make the air (eg in their homes) cleaner. That obviously improves the quality of air overall, but does it matter that that gives some air-selling company a slightly better product?
(Examples of companies that make money selling air: Air Liquide, a multinational company that sells liquid air and liquified gases extracted from air; dive stores etc, that charge for refilling SCUBA tanks; gas stations with the coin-operated tire inflators, etc.)
Of course, if you've got your own special air purifier that makes a high grade air that you don't want anyone bottling up without paying you, you're free to seal up your house and not let any of it out.
-- Alastair
Unless you're writing the code under some contract which states otherwise, the library you're developing for your employer on you employer's time is what's known in copyright law as a "work for hire", in which case your employer, not you, is legally considered the author and copyright holder. In which case, releasing it under the GPL can only be done by your employer.
If the library is useful, you've deprived your employer of potential revenue he might have gained (which would have paid your salary) by selling/licensing the code.
Consider what Disney's reaction would be if one of their animators released the cels that he drew.
(Of course, if you developed the lib on your own time, with your own resources, that's a different issue.)
-- Alastair
Actually you can get around the GPL with dynamic linking, provided you can distribute with the non-GPL'd software a non-GPL'd dynamic library with the same API (however crappy the implementation might be).
That way, you're distributing a set of non GPL'd code that happens to run better if the user swaps out the crappy library for the GPL'd good one.
Probably not worth the trouble in most cases, but it doesn't violate the letter of the GPL.
-- Alastair
It is free beer. RMS is just trying to get you to think beyond the narrow "freeware" scope when you think of free software.
But I think your problem is coming from the word "free" itself. It implies that software that's not "free" is "anti-free", and this is totally wrong. I really diskliked one of RMS recent statements that using proprietary software is like submitting yourself to slavery.
Am I a slave because I read a copyrighted novel? No! Is a shareware programmer a slave-owner? Again, No!
The confusion comes from the fact that free software is somewhere between proprietary and public domain software. Open Source is a much more acurate term in this sense, but still covers software that's not "free". We need a new term for free software. How about "open license" or just plain "copyleft."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You definition of left-wing is different than mine, and assumes a one-dimensional political spectrum. But I digress...
Of course the military should be able to fully benefit from free software. It wouldn't be free otherwise! Would you deny soldiers the rights of free speech, worship and association? Look at that last one a moment. Because I have the right to associate or not with the military I cannot deny them the same right to associate or not with anyone else.
Think "free association, not free beer."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"They are profiting from the free labour of thousands of generous programmers. This seems like exploitation, a loop hole in the GPL, and it just doesn't seem right."
This is not exploitation. Read your dictionary. Nobody was forced to give their software to Redhat, the FSF or anywhere else. Besides which, Redhat is not making money on other people's software, they're making it by selling manuals and support and hoodwinking big corporations. If you don't want your software being sold for money by others, then don't make it free software.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's a case of hypocrisy. Say, for example, you have a program that you use, and you customize it by adding some hard coded values into the source code. (You might do this to speed some things up, or to workaround some problems with your setup, or whatever.) These values would be specific to you, but probably useless for virtually everyone else. Why should you make that public? Why would anyone want you to?
On the other hand, if you make some in-house changes that other people might find useful, it's probably in your own best interests to release them. Other people might pick up on them and take them further; everyone would benefit from this.
You're a suburbanite.
No, it doesn't dovetail better with the Open Source definition of the OSI. In fact, it points out a failing of the Open Source definition.
Both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiatives are talking about software licenses. Software licenses are essentially based on copyright law, since in most cases, you have to copy software (i.e. install it) in order to use it, so your rights to copy it must be clearly defined. Copyright law only governs distribution of intellectual property, not use, so when both the FSF and OSI were defining things, nobody thought to point out that the freedom to use the software was important, it just went without saying.
Some recent licenses (such as IBM's Jikes license, and the APSL) have come out with terms saying that the company (IBM or Apple) can under certain circumstances terminate your right to use the software. The OSI has taken the position that such terms are not against the rules. The FSF has taken the position that these terms take away a fundamental freedom, just one they hadn't bothered to write down. Personally, I think such provisions are probably legally unenforcable, but I am not a lawyer, and I don't think either organization wants to sue IBM or Apple. In absence of that, I personally agree with the FSF, such terms make software non-Free.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
I think RMS is (quite rightly) trying to elevate the status of software to that of academic research, in which the different levels of freedom that he outlines are taken for granted, to the benefit of the entire research community.
1) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (level 0).
Academic research does not come with any prohibitions on its use. If its published, it's usable by anyone for anything.
2) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (level 1).
This is the entire point of publishing research, so that others may see how it works and possibly modify it.
3) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (level 2).
Publishing your research means that anyone has access to it at a decent academic library, so copying is not even an issue.
4) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (level 3).
Again, this is inherent in academic research. Publishing your results allows others to improve on your ideas or borrow your ideas for another purpose.
Removing any one of the above freedoms from academic research would be a ghastly proposition for all those involved. It would also harm basic research.
I think that developing software should be considered a form of academic research. By realizing that what RMS is trying to do is not so far fetched (i.e., "free research" is already taken for granted), free software can be better appreciated by those who don't understand the model.
The GNU project has never gone into extreme detail on all the criteria software needs to meet in order to be free. Much like the famous Then the Open Source people took the Debian Free Software Guidelines and tried to turn them into a more legalistic framework. Companies now view the Open Source Definition as the "law" they have to comply with, and as with any laws, seek loopholes that will allow them to comply with the letter but not the spirit of the document in a way that gives them an advantage.
Unfortunately, finding loopholes in the OSD doesn't really make the resulting code free. (For example, those with termination clauses). Thus, the explanation of what free software is needs to be tightened. Richard Stallman did not just unilaterally change the definition of free software. Instead, he made explicit something that was true all along, but was never actually stated.
I hate to see these definitions become more legalistic. This is probably somewhat necessary though. Corporations who have no background in the free software community need more detailed information than those of us who have been immersed in it for some time. We just need to make clear that these documents aren't laws to be worked around and that finding a loophole in one of them doesn't mean your software will be considered free.
You could insist that they call you God if they want to interview you or talk to you.
What I'm trying to say is that the "What is Free Software?" essay on the GNU web site is not meant to be a legal style definition of free software. You could (perhaps) devise a license that met the criteria there, but it would still be considered non-free. For example, the termination clause licenses fell into this category until the FSF updated the web site to address that particular problem. The Open Source Definition is presented as "meet these requirements, get our trademark".
So you think that it is "imposing" on someone to insist that they not use a term you find offensive when addressing you. It a black man imposing if he objects to someone saying "Hey, nigger, I've got a question for you?" Stallman probably doesn't feel as strongly about GNU/Linux as that, but the same principle applies. People are asking Stallman questions they want the answer to. If they expect him to answer them, then they have to comply with his wishes in addressing him or he will exercise his free speech right not to answer. If the people asking questions do not wish to use GNU/Linux, that is certainly their right, just as it is Stallman's right to suggest that they use a different term and to refuse to answer if they do not.
You are certainly free to choose another definition and select software based on that or any other criteria. Stallman speaks only for himself and the GNU project that he is the head of. If other people choose to accept his opinions, that is there choice. But he is not forcing his definition on anyone else. If many people choose to agree with him, then that is a tribute to his persuasiveness.
Given the way society has become increasingly dependant on computers and the internet to function, I argue that free software (as defined by FSF) is becoming essential to the stability of our economy and perhaps our society.
If proprietary and IMHO monopoly software is allowed to become essential to our infrastructure, the licensing terms on that software will go from being a simple cost to being more like a tax, or at least a cover charge. We have enough of those from natural monopolies as it is.
By specifying that acts of civil disobediance cannot disallow membership in society and commerce (by terminating the license to use these essential services), the FSF takes an important stance for civil liberty in general.
I guess the factions are finally getting down to cases. The level structure (may be new, but this is the first time I've seen it) is interesting. The highest is improve software and the lowest (ie, most important requirement) is usage.
This ordering, more than any other showcases the difference between FSF/RMS and ESR/OSS. The former sees an egalitarian ability to use software as the key to the Free Software Movement. Source code is the key to using however you want (without source you can't use EMACS on your old Timex/Sinclair) because it gives you platform and site freedom. ESR and his fellow travellers on the other hand, see software as a mertocracy of craftsman. "Let me have the source so I can improve it and we all have better products," is their mantra.
Like most ideology issues, I think the majority of the community is somewhere in the middle. Yeah, we want source to improve and fix, but we also want it to port and steal (oops., borrow). For the the times RMS has been called a hippie/socialist/commie/loser/whatever we still don't like the Apple license.
If their is any single thing from the FSF I'd like to see OSS adopted is the permenance of the license. This to me, even more than source, is key. If I know what the rules will always be I can make a much more imformed and productive choices. I don't so much object to more restrictive source licenses (one time fees and such) as I do to licenses that can be pulled out from under me at any time, after months of work on my part.
One final question for the FSF guys. Given the generally left leaning politics of your staff, have you considered the free to use cause and military usage? What if copylefted imaging aided in missle design or crypto added in war radio traffic? Is the principle of free usage important enough to override other principles. I ask because I've seen a lot of source availible (and source not availible) with free licenses except for the US Military/any military/US Government/any government/the Pentagon/etc. Would such a line violate free software principles in your POV (this is not to be insiteful, but a question of opinion...can we restrict people we don't like...the army, fundies, Green Peace, Discordian, whoever, from usage and still have freeware?).
Herb Nowell
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
Saying that Red Hat derives a benefit from someone else's voluntary labor is to state that they are benefitting from a positive externality. There are many instances of these. For example, if I paint my house, the value of all my neighbors' houses increases in value. Does that mean they are exploiting my unpaid labor? In general, America does not try to eliminate positive externalities. I do not get paid for everything I do that benefits someone else.
I'd like to draw a distinction between what I think Stallman is trying to do and what Raymond is trying to do. Stallman is trying to explain what free software is. Raymond is trying to define what open source software is in a more rigid sense for his branding campaign. I do not see them as two conflicting defitions.
Restricting software to non-military use would, technically, make the software non-free. The underlying prinicple of free software is that the user is more important than the author. Proprietary software claims the author is more important than the user, and thus gives to the author the right to decide who can use the software and what they can do with it. Putting restrictions on the use of software based on the author's own private morality might seem reasonable (if you agree with the author's moral sense, that is), but is a form of controlling the users and dividing them nevertheless. It is basically saying "I will give you this software, but only if you promise not to share it with some other people I don't like". This is the classic proprietary divide and conquer the users strategy.
Don't forget, one person's no military use is another person's no use on the Sabbath. Or no use by homosexuals. Or no use by the KKK. Or no use by breweries. Once unleashed, where does such a thing stop?