Changeset - 1a7de6ba649d
[Not reviewed]
Richard Fontana - 9 years ago 2015-04-03 01:18:39
fontana@sharpeleven.org
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.
1 file changed with 3 insertions and 1 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -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
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)