5 ms·

I think it is calling for the FSF to think about addressing a potential unwanted fragmentation of the free software community over opinions on ethical uses of s

by jraph 7y ago

I think it is calling for the FSF to think about addressing a potential unwanted fragmentation of the free software community over opinions on ethical uses of software and solutions based on restriction from licenses.

kube-system 7y ago
The FSF has never viewed anyone who wants exceptions to copyleft as being part of their community to begin with. Even something simple like the JSON license is something that the FSF sees as fundamentally incompatible with their values. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:JSON https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:JSON
- jraph 7y ago
  Yep, and I remember Stallman saying that these exceptions are not desirable in a talk. Matthew Garrett certainly knows it and certainly wants that something is done on the matter. Which could be good. However, the title implies a possible evolution of the definition of free software, but I just can't see that as conceivable. That would be akin to change the definition of the prime numbers to exclude 1, breaking many demonstrations in the process ⸮
  - lambertsimnel 7y ago
    > That would be akin to change the definition of the prime numbers to exclude 1 But one isn't prime: https://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/one.html https://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/one.html
    - jraph 7y ago
      Yes, that was ironic. 1 used to be prime for some time at some point in the past. I picked a mathematical definition that changed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number#Primality_of_one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number#Primality_of_on...
prepend 7y ago
I don’t think that’s the right case for the FSF. I think maybe OSI or one of the standards bodies. I’m not sure the precedent for any body to do what the author suggests. So some new org. It would be like the AMA deciding medical procedures couldn’t be performed on unethical people. It’s a neat idea, but not sure why author thinks FSF would consider this as ver suggestion is not free.

by jraph 7y ago

kube-system 7y ago

The FSF has never viewed anyone who wants exceptions to copyleft as being part of their community to begin with. Even something simple like the JSON license is something that the FSF sees as fundamentally incompatible with their values. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:JSON https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:JSON

jraph 7y ago
Yep, and I remember Stallman saying that these exceptions are not desirable in a talk. Matthew Garrett certainly knows it and certainly wants that something is done on the matter. Which could be good. However, the title implies a possible evolution of the definition of free software, but I just can't see that as conceivable. That would be akin to change the definition of the prime numbers to exclude 1, breaking many demonstrations in the process ⸮
- lambertsimnel 7y ago
  > That would be akin to change the definition of the prime numbers to exclude 1 But one isn't prime: https://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/one.html https://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/one.html
  - jraph 7y ago
    Yes, that was ironic. 1 used to be prime for some time at some point in the past. I picked a mathematical definition that changed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number#Primality_of_one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number#Primality_of_on...

prepend 7y ago

I don’t think that’s the right case for the FSF. I think maybe OSI or one of the standards bodies. I’m not sure the precedent for any body to do what the author suggests. So some new org. It would be like the AMA deciding medical procedures couldn’t be performed on unethical people. It’s a neat idea, but not sure why author thinks FSF would consider this as ver suggestion is not free.