4 ms·

What do you consider free software? Because I don't consider anything licensed under GPL as free, but I would consider software licensed under MIT or BSD as fre

by notus 7y ago

What do you consider free software? Because I don't consider anything licensed under GPL as free, but I would consider software licensed under MIT or BSD as free.

jraph 7y ago
To answer your question: probably any software following the widely accepted, opinion-free definition of "free software". Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. You are free not to like some free software licenses though.
- amenod 7y ago
  > Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. Your answer proves that GP has a point: Commons Clause (on top of Apache for instance) fits your requirements perfectly, yet it is not "free software" according to FSF/OSI definitions. There are degrees to freedom, and while FOSS activists would like to paint issues black and white, they really are not. Which freedoms a particular user cares about is not at all given. For myself, I would gladly use Commons Clause software, because if I make money off software then it's only fair that I pay commercial license for it - after all, it's in my interest that the software is actively developed and maintained. And your questions are really all I care about, and this clause conforms to them. But I think in the end it is up to each user to decide which set of freedoms they care about to the point of not using non-conforming software. The cynic in me would say that most users care only about free (as in beer) - at least judging by Android and plethora of its free-of-cost apps. EDIT: I am not arguing that Commons Clause & co. should be accepted under the "free license" term - for better or worse, this term has some widely accepted definition that is not compatible with them. Maybe a new term, like "hybrid licenses" is needed? We'll see.
  - csande17 7y ago
    I'm not sure Commons Clause even meets those informal requirements. You can't run Commons Clause software if you're receiving payment for doing so. You can't redistribute Commons Clause software verbatim if you're receiving payment for doing so. (As written, it even appears to prohibit selling a CD of the software for the cost of the blank CD, a service that's otherwise widely accepted as a useful community contribution.) Because the Commons Clause restricts the situations in which you can run and redistribute the software, software licensed under it isn't free software.
    - amenod 7y ago
      That's a good point - but of course I wasn't arguing that Commons Clause is "free software" (as defined by OSI/FSF). I do however believe that it solves a true problem that free software evangelists keep pretending doesn't exist, and it does so in a way which leaves user with much more freedoms than other proprietary licenses. Is it free software? No. Does it allow many more freedoms than closed source? Hell yes. Is that enough? We'll see.
  - temac 7y ago
    "Common Clause" prevents everybody to run it for "any purpose". Of course it does not fit the requirement for free software. I doubt that "can you run it?" is meant to be interpreted as: "can you run it, sometimes?"
    - jraph 7y ago
      Indeed. The actual definition says: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." I simplified too much. To GP: > There are degrees to freedom, and while FOSS activists would like to paint issues black and white, they really are not There are software that are free software, and software that are not free software. This is the whole point of a good definition. Actually assessing whether a program is free software might be hard, but at the end no software is between free software and non-free software. Now we can argue on a level of freedom but we are not talking about this definition anymore.
carapace 7y ago
GPL -> "Free" MIT or BSD -> "Open"
- notus 7y ago
  You mean GPL -> "Free, but..."
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    No. It is free: the end user can do whatever they want with the software. It’s restricting the rights of the developer to give the user more freedom.
- bitwize 7y ago
  No. MIT or BSD: free, open source GPL: free, open source, copyleft
- louiz 7y ago
  These three licenses all conform with both the Open Source Definition AND the Free Software Definition.
  - jraph 7y ago
    And by the way, Linus Torvalds is closer to the open source initiative that to the free software foundation, which he does not like much, but his preferred license is the GPLv2.

by notus 7y ago

What do you consider free software? Because I don't consider anything licensed under GPL as free, but I would consider software licensed under MIT or BSD as free.

jraph 7y ago

To answer your question: probably any software following the widely accepted, opinion-free definition of "free software". Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. You are free not to like some free software licenses though.

amenod 7y ago
> Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. Your answer proves that GP has a point: Commons Clause (on top of Apache for instance) fits your requirements perfectly, yet it is not "free software" according to FSF/OSI definitions. There are degrees to freedom, and while FOSS activists would like to paint issues black and white, they really are not. Which freedoms a particular user cares about is not at all given. For myself, I would gladly use Commons Clause software, because if I make money off software then it's only fair that I pay commercial license for it - after all, it's in my interest that the software is actively developed and maintained. And your questions are really all I care about, and this clause conforms to them. But I think in the end it is up to each user to decide which set of freedoms they care about to the point of not using non-conforming software. The cynic in me would say that most users care only about free (as in beer) - at least judging by Android and plethora of its free-of-cost apps. EDIT: I am not arguing that Commons Clause & co. should be accepted under the "free license" term - for better or worse, this term has some widely accepted definition that is not compatible with them. Maybe a new term, like "hybrid licenses" is needed? We'll see.
- csande17 7y ago
  I'm not sure Commons Clause even meets those informal requirements. You can't run Commons Clause software if you're receiving payment for doing so. You can't redistribute Commons Clause software verbatim if you're receiving payment for doing so. (As written, it even appears to prohibit selling a CD of the software for the cost of the blank CD, a service that's otherwise widely accepted as a useful community contribution.) Because the Commons Clause restricts the situations in which you can run and redistribute the software, software licensed under it isn't free software.
  - amenod 7y ago
    That's a good point - but of course I wasn't arguing that Commons Clause is "free software" (as defined by OSI/FSF). I do however believe that it solves a true problem that free software evangelists keep pretending doesn't exist, and it does so in a way which leaves user with much more freedoms than other proprietary licenses. Is it free software? No. Does it allow many more freedoms than closed source? Hell yes. Is that enough? We'll see.
- temac 7y ago
  "Common Clause" prevents everybody to run it for "any purpose". Of course it does not fit the requirement for free software. I doubt that "can you run it?" is meant to be interpreted as: "can you run it, sometimes?"
  - jraph 7y ago
    Indeed. The actual definition says: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." I simplified too much. To GP: > There are degrees to freedom, and while FOSS activists would like to paint issues black and white, they really are not There are software that are free software, and software that are not free software. This is the whole point of a good definition. Actually assessing whether a program is free software might be hard, but at the end no software is between free software and non-free software. Now we can argue on a level of freedom but we are not talking about this definition anymore.

carapace 7y ago

GPL -> "Free" MIT or BSD -> "Open"

notus 7y ago
You mean GPL -> "Free, but..."
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  No. It is free: the end user can do whatever they want with the software. It’s restricting the rights of the developer to give the user more freedom.
bitwize 7y ago
No. MIT or BSD: free, open source GPL: free, open source, copyleft
louiz 7y ago
These three licenses all conform with both the Open Source Definition AND the Free Software Definition.
- jraph 7y ago
  And by the way, Linus Torvalds is closer to the open source initiative that to the free software foundation, which he does not like much, but his preferred license is the GPLv2.