4 ms·

> rust's written under a free software license the way you are using "free" is undefined behavior. "Free" as in speech software, the F in FOSS, is associated w

> rust's written under a free software license the way you are using "free" is undefined behavior. "Free" as in speech software, the F in FOSS, is associated with copyleft FSF and GNU, and not like BSD, MIT, and Apache, the open source in fOSs, which is what Rust is.

TheDong 3y ago
The english language is full of ambiguity if you choose to be pedantic, yet somehow most people manage to communicate. The fact that you knew I was referring to rust's license means my English was in fact not undefined, but exactly as clearly defined as one can hope english to be, i.e. we both thought it meant the same thing. In my opinion, in context, "free software license" is also a clear and common phrase, not undefined behavior. Essentially, I think everyone has agreed that "free software", unless you add more qualifiers, will refer to the FSF definition of free software https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The FSFs definition includes both the licenses rust is licensed under: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat The FSF would happily call BSD, MIT, and Apache "Free Software Licenses", and in fact do so.
gpderetta 3y ago
The FSF recognizes BDS, MIT and Apache as Free Software (but not Copyleft) licenses.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  no, they recognize those licenses as compatible with the GPL, but not as free software https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ "Free software means that the users have the freedom to run, edit, contribute to, and share the software." those licenses allow derivatives which users cannot edit and contribute to thus they don't guarantee the 4 freedoms of free software.
  - gpderetta 3y ago
    That's literally contrary to what FSF says. Please read: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html . For example: Apache License, Version 2.0 This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL. Or: Expat License [this is the MIT license] This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. The fact that a license allows derivative work to take away the 4 freedoms don't make the license not a free software license. An end user in reception of a permissively licensed free software can make full use of the 4 freedoms.

TheDong 3y ago

The english language is full of ambiguity if you choose to be pedantic, yet somehow most people manage to communicate. The fact that you knew I was referring to rust's license means my English was in fact not undefined, but exactly as clearly defined as one can hope english to be, i.e. we both thought it meant the same thing. In my opinion, in context, "free software license" is also a clear and common phrase, not undefined behavior. Essentially, I think everyone has agreed that "free software", unless you add more qualifiers, will refer to the FSF definition of free software https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The FSFs definition includes both the licenses rust is licensed under: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat The FSF would happily call BSD, MIT, and Apache "Free Software Licenses", and in fact do so.

gpderetta 3y ago

The FSF recognizes BDS, MIT and Apache as Free Software (but not Copyleft) licenses.

fsckboy 3y ago
no, they recognize those licenses as compatible with the GPL, but not as free software https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ "Free software means that the users have the freedom to run, edit, contribute to, and share the software." those licenses allow derivatives which users cannot edit and contribute to thus they don't guarantee the 4 freedoms of free software.
- gpderetta 3y ago
  That's literally contrary to what FSF says. Please read: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html . For example: Apache License, Version 2.0 This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL. Or: Expat License [this is the MIT license] This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. The fact that a license allows derivative work to take away the 4 freedoms don't make the license not a free software license. An end user in reception of a permissively licensed free software can make full use of the 4 freedoms.