6 ms·

The FSF is happy to consider projects under permissive free licenses (MIT, BSD, APL, MPL) to be free software. Perhaps not ideally-licensed software, but they

by elehack 13y ago

The FSF is happy to consider projects under permissive free licenses (MIT, BSD, APL, MPL) to be free software. Perhaps not ideally-licensed software, but they have no problem calling them free software.

e12e 13y ago
True. I didn't really mean for my comment to be a normative standard for what is considered "free software", more to highlight how one might differentiate "open" and "free". As for the licences you list, I'd say that MIT, BSD and APL belong together as "different" from GPL, while the MPL is much closer to the GPL.
- ezequiel-garzon 13y ago
  Could you name any well-known open-source project that is not free in your view? I hope you won't suggest SQLite, which is in the public domain.
  - e12e 13y ago
    That would actually be an example of something that is open, but does little to ensure end-user freedom. Please note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that as such -- just that -- if we're talking about whether or not software is licensed in a way that ensures end user freedom or not, then putting software in the public domain is not an effective way to do that. One could take the sqlite source, modify it (to break file format comparability) and build something like fossil[1] -- but where the client software depends on a server side component ("fossilhub"), and then keep both the client and server proprietary. Now, anyone using this service would be locked in to using the proprietary clients and servers. It'd be difficult to modify the client, and difficult to migrate your data out -- and if the company that hosted the server shut down, it would take the data with it. Obviously, sqlite being in the public domain, doesn't dictate this (see the actual fossil software for a counter example). But on a spectrum, if something is released under the (A)GPL, and the licence is followed, end user lock in as a result of building on that software is less likely. The licence does a better job of protecting end user freedom. Would I say that sqlite, in general, isn't free software? Probably not. Would I call it "more free" if it was under the (L)GPL -- maybe. With libraries, how you define such things is tricky -- because the intended (end) user is different. When you release something like sqlite, you want both the developer user, and the end user to have freedoms. You might want to enable the developer to restrict the end users freedoms -- and that is fine -- but calling such a licence "more free" just because it shifts which type of users' freedoms it protects, doesn't sit quite right with me. As an example, one could take pretty much any software under the BSD licence, or say the whole of a BSD system. Because it facilitates closed systems. It's been suggested that the PS3 OS runs off a modified version of FreeBSD, for example. Now, the console business is largely based on lock-in; subsidize the hardware for a while, make money from licences. If people could just run anything they wanted on the subsidized hardware, that wouldn't work very well -- you'd essentially be giving away hardware. It'd also be illegal dumping in most regulated free markets. I'd love for things to be regulated so that selling such crippled hardware wasn't legal. That would probably mean a hike in console prices, however (well, at least in the previous generation of consoles -- it's a little less clear now that both Sony and Microsoft will be selling PCs). Another example (well the same example) might be iOS/iphone vs Android devices. Android running the Linux kernel, lowers the bar considerably for companies like Canonical and Mozilla to develop new OSs that run on existing hardware. Yet another example would be various routers and switches running propietary software, leaving the owner stranded if the upstream source of the software stops development for some reason. Free is a spectrum - my original response tried to highlight one difference between "open" and "free" -- and in that context, I wouldn't consider sqlite to be particularily free (nor entirely closed!). I do consider it do be (entirely) open. [1] http://www.fossil-scm.org/ http://www.fossil-scm.org/
    - kodablah 13y ago
      Your (and RMS's) definition of "freedom" and mine are different. I see software as "free" when it lets me do whatever with it, including modification and distribution with NO restrictions. GPL software adds restrictions, and even if those restrictions promote freedom, the restrictions themselves are the antithesis of free in my view.
      - saurik 13y ago
        Freedom is in the eye of the beholder, and often has many zero-sum components: the freedom you are requesting (to use someone else's work as part of your own without having to give anything in return) directly impinges on the freedom of others (as users do not have the freedom to modify the resulting binaries or devices that you are distributing, a freedom the GPL is designed to assure users have). I encourage you to read this conversation I was in recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 (edit: fixed link to include the actually-important comment...)
        e12e 13y ago
        Thanks for that, I wouldn't have seen that (sub)thread otherwise. Basing an argument on the distribution of binaries seems sound -- even if some people seem to be able to look past the most well-structured and straightforward arguments no matter how things are formulated...
      - emiliobumachar 13y ago
        RMS writings tend to describe those extra features in your definition of freedow as power, because they give you control over others (with their consent when they accept the terms).
      - betterunix 13y ago
        Of course, in a world where there was no proprietary software, the GPL's restrictions would not be very restrictive. That is kind of the point: to create such a world, or at least to create such an ecosystem.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    qmail and djbdns from before the public domain switch.
    - e12e 13y ago
      Minix? (Before v3)

by elehack 13y ago

e12e 13y ago

True. I didn't really mean for my comment to be a normative standard for what is considered "free software", more to highlight how one might differentiate "open" and "free". As for the licences you list, I'd say that MIT, BSD and APL belong together as "different" from GPL, while the MPL is much closer to the GPL.

ezequiel-garzon 13y ago
Could you name any well-known open-source project that is not free in your view? I hope you won't suggest SQLite, which is in the public domain.
- e12e 13y ago
  That would actually be an example of something that is open, but does little to ensure end-user freedom. Please note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that as such -- just that -- if we're talking about whether or not software is licensed in a way that ensures end user freedom or not, then putting software in the public domain is not an effective way to do that. One could take the sqlite source, modify it (to break file format comparability) and build something like fossil[1] -- but where the client software depends on a server side component ("fossilhub"), and then keep both the client and server proprietary. Now, anyone using this service would be locked in to using the proprietary clients and servers. It'd be difficult to modify the client, and difficult to migrate your data out -- and if the company that hosted the server shut down, it would take the data with it. Obviously, sqlite being in the public domain, doesn't dictate this (see the actual fossil software for a counter example). But on a spectrum, if something is released under the (A)GPL, and the licence is followed, end user lock in as a result of building on that software is less likely. The licence does a better job of protecting end user freedom. Would I say that sqlite, in general, isn't free software? Probably not. Would I call it "more free" if it was under the (L)GPL -- maybe. With libraries, how you define such things is tricky -- because the intended (end) user is different. When you release something like sqlite, you want both the developer user, and the end user to have freedoms. You might want to enable the developer to restrict the end users freedoms -- and that is fine -- but calling such a licence "more free" just because it shifts which type of users' freedoms it protects, doesn't sit quite right with me. As an example, one could take pretty much any software under the BSD licence, or say the whole of a BSD system. Because it facilitates closed systems. It's been suggested that the PS3 OS runs off a modified version of FreeBSD, for example. Now, the console business is largely based on lock-in; subsidize the hardware for a while, make money from licences. If people could just run anything they wanted on the subsidized hardware, that wouldn't work very well -- you'd essentially be giving away hardware. It'd also be illegal dumping in most regulated free markets. I'd love for things to be regulated so that selling such crippled hardware wasn't legal. That would probably mean a hike in console prices, however (well, at least in the previous generation of consoles -- it's a little less clear now that both Sony and Microsoft will be selling PCs). Another example (well the same example) might be iOS/iphone vs Android devices. Android running the Linux kernel, lowers the bar considerably for companies like Canonical and Mozilla to develop new OSs that run on existing hardware. Yet another example would be various routers and switches running propietary software, leaving the owner stranded if the upstream source of the software stops development for some reason. Free is a spectrum - my original response tried to highlight one difference between "open" and "free" -- and in that context, I wouldn't consider sqlite to be particularily free (nor entirely closed!). I do consider it do be (entirely) open. [1] http://www.fossil-scm.org/ http://www.fossil-scm.org/
  - kodablah 13y ago
    Your (and RMS's) definition of "freedom" and mine are different. I see software as "free" when it lets me do whatever with it, including modification and distribution with NO restrictions. GPL software adds restrictions, and even if those restrictions promote freedom, the restrictions themselves are the antithesis of free in my view.
    - saurik 13y ago
      Freedom is in the eye of the beholder, and often has many zero-sum components: the freedom you are requesting (to use someone else's work as part of your own without having to give anything in return) directly impinges on the freedom of others (as users do not have the freedom to modify the resulting binaries or devices that you are distributing, a freedom the GPL is designed to assure users have). I encourage you to read this conversation I was in recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724 (edit: fixed link to include the actually-important comment...)
      - e12e 13y ago
        Thanks for that, I wouldn't have seen that (sub)thread otherwise. Basing an argument on the distribution of binaries seems sound -- even if some people seem to be able to look past the most well-structured and straightforward arguments no matter how things are formulated...
    - emiliobumachar 13y ago
      RMS writings tend to describe those extra features in your definition of freedow as power, because they give you control over others (with their consent when they accept the terms).
    - betterunix 13y ago
      Of course, in a world where there was no proprietary software, the GPL's restrictions would not be very restrictive. That is kind of the point: to create such a world, or at least to create such an ecosystem.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  qmail and djbdns from before the public domain switch.
  - e12e 13y ago
    Minix? (Before v3)