Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FSF updates Free Software definition

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the stuff-to-read dept.

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). "

2 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Perplexing moral problem with FSF free software by Aaron+M.+Renn · · Score: 4

    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.

  2. Battlelines are being drawn by Aaron+M.+Renn · · Score: 4

    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?