Do we need to rethink what free software is? • Hacker News Board

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#151

Post by louiz » Sun, Sep 29, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

carapace wrote: post #96

notus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you consider free software? Because I don't consider anything licensed under GPL as free, but I would consider software licensed under MIT or BSD as free.

GPL -> "Free" MIT or BSD -> "Open"

These three licenses all conform with both the Open Source Definition AND the Free Software Definition.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#152

Post by amenod » Sun, Sep 29, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

csande17 wrote: post #135

amenod wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you run it? Read its code? Redistribute it verbatim? Make modifications to the code for private use? Redistribute the modifications? Then it's free software. Your answer proves that GP has a point: Commons Clause (on top of Apache for instance) fits your requirements perfectly, yet it is not "free software" according to FSF/OSI definitions. There are degrees to freedom, and while FOSS activists would like to pa…

I'm not sure Commons Clause even meets those informal requirements. You can't run Commons Clause software if you're receiving payment for doing so. You can't redistribute Commons Clause software verbatim if you're receiving payment for doing so. (As written, it even appears to prohibit selling a CD of the software for the cost of the blank CD , a service that's otherwise widely accepted as a useful community contribu…

That's a good point - but of course I wasn't arguing that Commons Clause is "free software" (as defined by OSI/FSF). I do however believe that it solves a true problem that free software evangelists keep pretending doesn't exist, and it does so in a way which leaves user with much more freedoms than other proprietary licenses.

Is it free software? No. Does it allow many more freedoms than closed source? Hell yes. Is that enough? We'll see.

Re: Do we need to rethink what free software is?

#153

Post by jraph » Sun, Sep 29, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

louiz wrote: post #151

carapace wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL -> "Free" MIT or BSD -> "Open"

These three licenses all conform with both the Open Source Definition AND the Free Software Definition.

And by the way, Linus Torvalds is closer to the open source initiative that to the free software foundation, which he does not like much, but his preferred license is the GPLv2.