2 ms·
You have it backwards. Free with provisions (I.E. "You can do all of the above, except deprive X") is not free. Open isn't just what the blog talks about. The t
by eksith 13y ago
You have it backwards. Free with provisions (I.E. "You can do all of the above, except deprive X") is not free. Open isn't just what the blog talks about. The title of the thing is "Returning to Free Software".
BTW. I'm not a fan of GPL because I feel that too is restrictive.
- catmanjan 13y agoEven the distro he suggests is not free. They bundle drivers and codecs which have proprietary licenses. By doing that they exclude themselves completely from the "Free Software" category. Bottom line, if the distro you want to use is not on this list: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html Chances are it is not free according to the four laws.
- mpyne 13y agoDon't knock "Free with provisions" so easily. The license is dual-hatted as a license for the end-user and a license for the software distributor. To keep freedom for the end user it is required to place restrictions on the distributor. To keep freedom for the distributor/author it is required to place restrictions on the end user. So "Freedom" is in the eye of the beholder, and people forget that FSF and RMS are on a political, not an engineering mission, which requires licenses like GPL. If you're just trying to do an open development process because such software "works better" then your view of freedom will never be the same as FSF's, and then licenses like BSD or even MsPL might be just fine.