From 1a7de6ba649da7485e346813fb917174d9df98c2 2015-04-03 01:18:39 From: Richard Fontana Date: 2015-04-03 01:18:39 Subject: [PATCH] Modify sentence that oversimplifies notion of completeness of software freedom. In reality the FSF (as chief guardians of what the definition of free software is) and the larger Free Software community have tolerated certain kinds of restrictions on software freedom. One example, called out in my change to this sentence, is that of copyleft requirements. To arch lax-permissive-license advocates copyleft requirements may be an undue restriction on software freedom, but the larger Free Software community considers copyleft (at least within limits recognized by the FSF) to be a tolerable deviation from maximum software freedom for a given user. In the case of copyleft, the justification is that the constraints on that user allow software freedom to be maximized among the larger set of present and future users. --- diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index ec0d8ffd75691073ddefb4b9ece7c4ae5d1da583..2dd3ff9f13f19fab6306518d46f2be9d132dd223 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -137,7 +137,9 @@ prerequisite to make use of the freedom to modify. However, the important issue is what freedoms are granted in the license that applies to that source code. Software freedom is only complete when no restrictions are imposed on how -these freedoms are exercised. Specifically, users and programmers can +these freedoms are exercised, other than certain conditions customarily +considered compatible with software freedom (such as copyleft requirements +designed to maximize software freedom for the greater number of users). Specifically, users and programmers can exercise these freedoms noncommercially or commercially. Licenses that grant these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial activities are considered non-free. The Open Source Initiative