3 ms·
Honestly, I'm getting the impression you're too being too rigid with definitions: anchoring too strongly in the incidental specifics of GPL as being "free softw
by tivert 2y ago
Honestly, I'm getting the impression you're too being too rigid with definitions: anchoring too strongly in the incidental specifics of GPL as being "free software" while ignoring its goals.
- kazinator 2y agoThe GPL promotes the four essential freedoms posted on the GNU/FSF website. They are not incidental. There is a lengthy article by RMS "Why programs must not limit the freedom to run them". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
- kazinator 2y agoNowhere does RMS say that, oh, if the user modified the program, it's okay to limit their freedom to run it in some ways, as long as it's via a license blessed by the GNU project and the FSF, the ultimate arbiters of what is free who can change their minds at any time. However, in this article, RMS is cheerfully recommending Affero: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...