5 ms·
> I would like to make it explicit that only flesh and blood individuals should have access to freedom 0. So basically, turn freedom 0 into not freedom 0. For
by codetrotter 8y ago
> I would like to make it explicit that only flesh and blood individuals should have access to freedom 0.
So basically, turn freedom 0 into not freedom 0.
For reference, GNU freedom 0 is “the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”.
What you are saying seems to go against the principles of freedom 0, and I don’t get your motivation either, because at the same time you don’t seem to mind proprietary software.
My main issue with what you are saying is that it’s not clear what you mean by “removing freedom 0 for corporations”. Do you mean specifically when they are offering software written by someone else as a direct service to customers? What about using it in the backend? What about employees using FOSS?
There is a lot more to be said and discussed about this.
- neolefty 8y agoRather, I'd say it reinterprets "run the program" to be "have access to the program over the web". In other words, if I use your website, I should also be able to stand up my own version that uses my own data.
- antt 8y ago>For reference, GNU freedom 0 is “the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”. That depends on what your definition of "you" and "you wish" is. If your boss tells you to run X then you are not the one wanting to run it, the company is. And, American jurisprudence not notwithstanding, I don't consider corporations to be a form of "you". If a sole proprietor with full legal liability for their actions wanted to do the same, more power to them. No matter how many people they hire to do the work for them.