5 ms·
Who gets to decide the definition? The blog uses the definition "Note that when we say 'free' here, we mean free as in speech, not free as in beer," but I would
by hgs3 5y ago
Who gets to decide the definition? The blog uses the definition "Note that when we say 'free' here, we mean free as in speech, not free as in beer," but I would argue "free for non-commercial use" licenses _are_ inherently free as in speech, but not beer.
- josephcsible 5y agoBut the freedom of speech applies even to commercial speech.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago> Who gets to decide the definition? The FSF. Their definition of Free Software is the accepted one. The blog post links to it. > I would argue "free for non-commercial use" licenses _are_ inherently free as in speech, but not beer No, when software is free as in beer, that's used to mean that it can be obtained free of charge. Software whose licence prohibits commercial use is by definition not Free Software, following the FSF definition, as this violates Freedom 0.
- hgs3 5y ago> The FSF. Their definition of Free Software is the accepted one. Anyone can create their own organization with their own list of violations. I happen to be in agreement with the FSF on most points, but not with regards to non-commercial licenses.