The author makes a serious mistake in calling Freedom 0 "just silly". He doesn't seem to disagree with Freedom 0, just considers it obvious and trivial ("I mean

The author makes a serious mistake in calling Freedom 0 "just silly". He doesn't seem to disagree with Freedom 0, just considers it obvious and trivial ("I mean of course I can use the program as I wish"). An example demonstrating that this freedom is not obvious, even to people who believe in "free software" is the "Hacktivismo Enchanced-Source Software License Agreement" [0]. To quote from the FSF [1]: > The Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA) is a software source license that tries to put restrictions of ethical conduct on use and modification of the software. Because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do, it is not a free software license. The ironic result is that the community of people most likely to feel sympathy for the goals of the HESSLA cannot contribute to HESSLA-covered software without violating its principles. > The restrictions in the HESSLA prohibit specific activities that are inexcusable: violations of human rights, and introduction of features that spy on the user. People might ask why we do not declare an exception for these particular restrictions—why do we stick to the general policy of rejecting all restrictions on use and on the functionality of modified versions? > If we were ever going to make an exception to our principles of free software, here would be the place to do it. But it would be a mistake to do so: it would do harm to free software movement and would achieve nothing. Trying to stop those particular activities with a software license is either unnecessary or ineffective. [0]: http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html