3 ms·

If you put restrictions on free software, isn't it then by definition non-free?

analognoise 7y ago
You can violate things like ITAR with open source, and the ITAR rules will take precedence. There are a lot of ways you can restrict FOSS software - even fully FLOSS DOD codes are not supposed to be obtainable from places like Iran and North Korea.
- nickpsecurity 7y ago
  Checking up on the "Crypto Wars," my reading export regulations led to a surprise: only a few types of crypto were re-classified from a munition to something with no restrictions. High-assurance security (EAL6/7) and customized security, among other things, were still munitions. Undoubtedly, they left that in there in case they wanted to restrict availability of high-security products in a future where they became effective for foreign users. The other thing it implied is that DOD (esp NSA) knew the cryptosystems they were approving would be bypassable in most cases.
- rhamzeh 7y ago
  That is scary. But what gives a certain government (in this case the US) the right* to say code that has been contributed by global citizens should no longer be accessible to certain people (possible including those who contributed in the first place?) Isn't something that is restricted against the following statement from "The Free Software Definition"[1]: > “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis. > We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power. ... the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software - That sentence in particular seems to imply that if you restrict it, something can still be open source (OSS), but no longer free/libre (FLOSS). So if the DoD claims to have FLOSS code that cannot be used in certain cases, by definition it should be described as OSS, not FLOSS. [1](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
  - tantalor 7y ago
    > should no longer be accessible to certain people That's hard to enforce, but it's easier to restrict what those other parties can do with the code once they have it, e.g., ban their business from your country.

You can violate things like ITAR with open source, and the ITAR rules will take precedence. There are a lot of ways you can restrict FOSS software - even fully FLOSS DOD codes are not supposed to be obtainable from places like Iran and North Korea.

nickpsecurity 7y ago
Checking up on the "Crypto Wars," my reading export regulations led to a surprise: only a few types of crypto were re-classified from a munition to something with no restrictions. High-assurance security (EAL6/7) and customized security, among other things, were still munitions. Undoubtedly, they left that in there in case they wanted to restrict availability of high-security products in a future where they became effective for foreign users. The other thing it implied is that DOD (esp NSA) knew the cryptosystems they were approving would be bypassable in most cases.
rhamzeh 7y ago
That is scary. But what gives a certain government (in this case the US) the right* to say code that has been contributed by global citizens should no longer be accessible to certain people (possible including those who contributed in the first place?) Isn't something that is restricted against the following statement from "The Free Software Definition"[1]: > “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis. > We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power. ... the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software - That sentence in particular seems to imply that if you restrict it, something can still be open source (OSS), but no longer free/libre (FLOSS). So if the DoD claims to have FLOSS code that cannot be used in certain cases, by definition it should be described as OSS, not FLOSS. [1](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
- tantalor 7y ago
  > should no longer be accessible to certain people That's hard to enforce, but it's easier to restrict what those other parties can do with the code once they have it, e.g., ban their business from your country.