5 ms·

That's a very misleading essay. "It is that, whereas free software is always also open source, open source software does not necessarily have to be free softwa

by air 13y ago

That's a very misleading essay. "It is that, whereas free software is always also open source, open source software does not necessarily have to be free software. That is, software can be open source without granting its users the additional freedoms that free software guarantees." This is incorrect, and the example given was incorrect. The terms are identical in meaning. Open source was coined to be a trademark for free software.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
If I give you Tivoized BSD code, this is open source but not free software, at least since GPLv3.
- air 13y ago
  First of all, creating a new free software license does not alter the freeness of any software/license. GPLv3 incompatibility does not make software non-free, otherwise Linux kernel would not be free anymore. Second, the Tivoised BSD code is free software. The fact that a piece of hardware exists that refuses to run a modified version of some BSD licensed code, does not make the code non-free.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Well, I'm going to take the FSF as the authority on what freedom means with respect to software, since it's their term. They clearly view GPLv2 code as less free than GPLv3. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html Quoting the relevant bits about tivoization: > The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... Freedom means you control what your software does, not merely that you can beg or threaten someone else who decides for you.
    - air 13y ago
      I don't think this thread is worth continuing. - GPLv2 is free software https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2 - If I take the Linux kernel 3.10.6 and create a piece of hardware that refuses to boot up any other version, Linux kernel 3.10.6 is still free software.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        The FSF defines freedom in terms of the four freedoms: use, modify, copy, distribute. When people started abusing the GPLv2 in ways they didn't think about, they came out with the GPLv3 to protect these freedoms. I think your argument is really with the FSF. There was no shortage of drama when Linus refused to upgrade the Linux license to GPLv3. Tivoization removes the freedom to modify your software (and still have it run). Again, quoting the FSF about tivoization: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”, or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot” — freedom 1 becomes a theoretical fiction rather than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient. In other words, these binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free. I don't know what else to say. The FSF writes, "these binaries are not free software". They're referring to Tivoized Linux binaries. They get to make up the rules here. That includes changing their mind about freedom such that something that was formerly totally free is now less free. FWIW, I'm not advocating for or against GPL software.
    - levosmetalo 13y ago
      > Well, I'm going to take the FSF as the authority on what freedom means with respect to software, since it's their term. No, it's not "their" term. They didn't invent and trademark term "Free". People were always using this word in context of software to mean that something is free of charge, and that is still the major usage of the term if you go asking users of the actual software. I don't care about FSF at all, but it bothers me when people assume that "free" could only possibly mean "Free (tm) (c) FSF". The term existed long before FSF with completely different meaning, which is still retained by >90% of the users. It's only the developers (and lawyers) that argue whether GPL, BSD, MIT or any other software is "free", free or not free. The users call it free if they can use it without paying for it, and that's all that matters to them. </rant>
      - cygx 13y ago
        We have two perfectly fine terms 'free software' and 'freeware' to denote programs that are distributed under a license compatible with the ideals of the free software movement and for software that's distributed free of charge. Of course the free software movement doesn't own the term 'free', but context matters.
  - okey 13y ago
    Just fyi, the Linux kernel is under GPLv2, not GPLv3, afaik.
    - mzl 13y ago
      Just fyi, that was the point in the argument. :-)
      - okey 13y ago
        The original argument, perhaps, but that's certainly not how I interpreted "GPLv3 incompatibility does not make software non-free, otherwise Linux kernel would not be free anymore."

by air 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago

If I give you Tivoized BSD code, this is open source but not free software, at least since GPLv3.

air 13y ago
First of all, creating a new free software license does not alter the freeness of any software/license. GPLv3 incompatibility does not make software non-free, otherwise Linux kernel would not be free anymore. Second, the Tivoised BSD code is free software. The fact that a piece of hardware exists that refuses to run a modified version of some BSD licensed code, does not make the code non-free.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Well, I'm going to take the FSF as the authority on what freedom means with respect to software, since it's their term. They clearly view GPLv2 code as less free than GPLv3. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html Quoting the relevant bits about tivoization: > The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... Freedom means you control what your software does, not merely that you can beg or threaten someone else who decides for you.
  - air 13y ago
    I don't think this thread is worth continuing. - GPLv2 is free software https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2 - If I take the Linux kernel 3.10.6 and create a piece of hardware that refuses to boot up any other version, Linux kernel 3.10.6 is still free software.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      The FSF defines freedom in terms of the four freedoms: use, modify, copy, distribute. When people started abusing the GPLv2 in ways they didn't think about, they came out with the GPLv3 to protect these freedoms. I think your argument is really with the FSF. There was no shortage of drama when Linus refused to upgrade the Linux license to GPLv3. Tivoization removes the freedom to modify your software (and still have it run). Again, quoting the FSF about tivoization: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”, or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot” — freedom 1 becomes a theoretical fiction rather than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient. In other words, these binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free. I don't know what else to say. The FSF writes, "these binaries are not free software". They're referring to Tivoized Linux binaries. They get to make up the rules here. That includes changing their mind about freedom such that something that was formerly totally free is now less free. FWIW, I'm not advocating for or against GPL software.
  - levosmetalo 13y ago
    > Well, I'm going to take the FSF as the authority on what freedom means with respect to software, since it's their term. No, it's not "their" term. They didn't invent and trademark term "Free". People were always using this word in context of software to mean that something is free of charge, and that is still the major usage of the term if you go asking users of the actual software. I don't care about FSF at all, but it bothers me when people assume that "free" could only possibly mean "Free (tm) (c) FSF". The term existed long before FSF with completely different meaning, which is still retained by >90% of the users. It's only the developers (and lawyers) that argue whether GPL, BSD, MIT or any other software is "free", free or not free. The users call it free if they can use it without paying for it, and that's all that matters to them. </rant>
    - cygx 13y ago
      We have two perfectly fine terms 'free software' and 'freeware' to denote programs that are distributed under a license compatible with the ideals of the free software movement and for software that's distributed free of charge. Of course the free software movement doesn't own the term 'free', but context matters.
- okey 13y ago
  Just fyi, the Linux kernel is under GPLv2, not GPLv3, afaik.
  - mzl 13y ago
    Just fyi, that was the point in the argument. :-)
    - okey 13y ago
      The original argument, perhaps, but that's certainly not how I interpreted "GPLv3 incompatibility does not make software non-free, otherwise Linux kernel would not be free anymore."