Conversation

Notices

1. Annah (maiyannah@community.highlandarrow.com)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Oct-2018 08:21:18 EDT Annah
   @verius Its simple.  Something must respect the four freedoms to be free software.  This license violates one of the four freedoms.  Ergo, it is not free software.
   1. Verius (verius@community.highlandarrow.com)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Oct-2018 09:53:06 EDT Verius

      in reply to
      @maiyannah It's not quite that simple. The four freedoms are (according to the FSF) "
      The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
      The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
      The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
      The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."  Which freedom is infringed? Freedom 1, 2 and 3 don't seem to be impacted. That leaves freedom 0 but the license isn't so much restricting your ability to run the program as it's to offer access to others to run the program. So I'm curious what your argument for the violation of the four freedoms is. (Which is not to say that I necessarily disagree, I'm genuinely curious whether there's an argument straight from the fundamental philosophy of free software here)
      1. Annah (maiyannah@community.highlandarrow.com)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Oct-2018 11:45:51 EDT Annah

         in reply to
         @verius If you are not able to redistribute your changes without onerous conditions, it is not free software.  Read the license, it adds several.
         1. Verius (verius@community.highlandarrow.com)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Oct-2018 12:52:33 EDT Verius

            in reply to
            @maiyannah I've read the PDF with the diff between the AGPL and the SSPL. I disagree that it constrains distribution, I see it more as restricting how you can use the program. But that may be a matter of how you interpret offering a service over the network. The way I read it that's more of an aspect of usage rather than distribution but I could imagine you see that as an aspect of distribution. In any case after reading the diff I'm even more convinced that this isn't a FOSS license. The thing is, section 2 talks about affirming (not granting) your right to use the software but they add a "subject to section 13". That's clearly a usage restriction which is a no-no FOSS-wise.