4 ms·

Doesn't Stallman's "free" license dictate what you can and cannot do with the software?

orra 4y ago
No, the GNU licences place copyleft obligations on distribution/conveyance. But they allow you to run the programs for any purpose, without field of endeavour restrictions, or moral police. You don't even need to accept a licence to run a GNU program.
- optimalsolver 4y ago
  >place copyleft obligations on distribution/conveyance Ok, so a major restriction on what you can do with the software.
  - schoen 4y ago
    I know that people have criticized copyleft for decades as being unfree in some sense, and I suppose citing either FSF's definition or those derived from it would be circular in the sense that they were all written by people who assumed that copyleft was acceptable. But those definitions are clear that the "right to run the program for any purpose" must not be restricted by copyright licensing terms, and that copyright licensing "must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". Neither of those are infringed by restrictions on further distribution. (In fact, even freeware licenses that prohibited redistribution entirely could be compatible with this specific rule.) You might say that it was surprising or hypocritical not to have a corresponding freedom related to redistribution, which would then preclude copyleft licensing. The BSD projects have tended to act as though they recognized this additional rule (that it's important to allow sublicensing and not to attach the same conditions to derived works, including allowing the possibility that end users of derived works will get fewer rights). But even in this case, nobody has suggested that it was "free" or "open" to directly limit the purposes for which end users could run a program.
- frabcus 4y ago
  Out of interest are there any copyleft style neural network licenses - eg that require fine tuned model weights are published? (And Affero GPL style in terms of servers and distribution meaning these days)
  - orra 4y ago
    I am not an expert, but I'd just use the the normal LGPL/GPL/AGPL licenses for the models.

orra 4y ago

No, the GNU licences place copyleft obligations on distribution/conveyance. But they allow you to run the programs for any purpose, without field of endeavour restrictions, or moral police. You don't even need to accept a licence to run a GNU program.

optimalsolver 4y ago
>place copyleft obligations on distribution/conveyance Ok, so a major restriction on what you can do with the software.
- schoen 4y ago
  I know that people have criticized copyleft for decades as being unfree in some sense, and I suppose citing either FSF's definition or those derived from it would be circular in the sense that they were all written by people who assumed that copyleft was acceptable. But those definitions are clear that the "right to run the program for any purpose" must not be restricted by copyright licensing terms, and that copyright licensing "must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". Neither of those are infringed by restrictions on further distribution. (In fact, even freeware licenses that prohibited redistribution entirely could be compatible with this specific rule.) You might say that it was surprising or hypocritical not to have a corresponding freedom related to redistribution, which would then preclude copyleft licensing. The BSD projects have tended to act as though they recognized this additional rule (that it's important to allow sublicensing and not to attach the same conditions to derived works, including allowing the possibility that end users of derived works will get fewer rights). But even in this case, nobody has suggested that it was "free" or "open" to directly limit the purposes for which end users could run a program.
frabcus 4y ago
Out of interest are there any copyleft style neural network licenses - eg that require fine tuned model weights are published? (And Affero GPL style in terms of servers and distribution meaning these days)
- orra 4y ago
  I am not an expert, but I'd just use the the normal LGPL/GPL/AGPL licenses for the models.