3 ms·

You can use all these software even in Iran though. You just have to get it from somewhere else. I can write a FLOSS app and decide to distribute it only to pe

You can use all these software even in Iran though. You just have to get it from somewhere else. I can write a FLOSS app and decide to distribute it only to people whose name is Amy, and it will remain 100% FLOSS as long as these Amys have all their freedoms guaranteed (including the freedom to redistribute that software to anyone else). The only thing that seems at odds with software freedom (at least as understood by FSF and OSI) shown in this article is Fedora's "By clicking on and downloading..." screen. IANAL, but "you can't redistribute this to XYZ" sounds like "this software is non-free" to me. This is actually an interesting problem. If I make a FLOSS app, but my government decides against my will that neither I nor anyone I shared it with can share it any further, is it FLOSS anymore? I guess no, but what if I break the law and share it anyway?

the_af 5y ago
I think the main argument is indeed spelled out in your last paragraph. Can it be Free Software if access to it is legally restricted based on nationality? I'm going to guess that it can't be, at least not according to FSF's definition of Free as in "libre". If it turns out it's just US-centric-free, that's a disappointing narrowing down of the concept. > You can use all these software even in Iran though. You just have to get it from somewhere else. I think using the distro or even getting access to the source code is not the issue. This dev likely already has a local copy. But how is he going to legally get newer copies of the source code or meaningfully collaborate with other contributors? Let's say he says "screw this" and manages to somehow host a fork in an Iranian server. How are other contributors based in the US going to share their contributions without legal risks?
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  Collaboration is orthogonal to the software being free though. You're free to make a fork and accept (or not) any contributions you want to - not just based on your country laws, but also even just on your whim. If the laws prohibit you from collaborating with someone, it's you who's not free, not the software you make. Also, being able to get newer copies is not an issue from the Free Software definition point of view. All it cares about is whether you're free to do things with a copy you already got. Don't get me wrong, taking away the ability to collaborate and having to jump through hoops to be able to participate in modern world are real and severe problems - it just has nothing to do with software freedom per se (at least unless you're prevented from sharing the obtained software with someone else).

the_af 5y ago

I think the main argument is indeed spelled out in your last paragraph. Can it be Free Software if access to it is legally restricted based on nationality? I'm going to guess that it can't be, at least not according to FSF's definition of Free as in "libre". If it turns out it's just US-centric-free, that's a disappointing narrowing down of the concept. > You can use all these software even in Iran though. You just have to get it from somewhere else. I think using the distro or even getting access to the source code is not the issue. This dev likely already has a local copy. But how is he going to legally get newer copies of the source code or meaningfully collaborate with other contributors? Let's say he says "screw this" and manages to somehow host a fork in an Iranian server. How are other contributors based in the US going to share their contributions without legal risks?

seba_dos1 5y ago
Collaboration is orthogonal to the software being free though. You're free to make a fork and accept (or not) any contributions you want to - not just based on your country laws, but also even just on your whim. If the laws prohibit you from collaborating with someone, it's you who's not free, not the software you make. Also, being able to get newer copies is not an issue from the Free Software definition point of view. All it cares about is whether you're free to do things with a copy you already got. Don't get me wrong, taking away the ability to collaborate and having to jump through hoops to be able to participate in modern world are real and severe problems - it just has nothing to do with software freedom per se (at least unless you're prevented from sharing the obtained software with someone else).