Ehy @cwebber

Mattew Garret posted an interesting thought on his blog

It' s about what could or should be achieved through software licenses and what the pressures are today

I found it on the spot and I'd be interested in reading your impression about that

@AbbieNormal Hadn't read it, thanks. I would like to reply to this issue in general (and reference this post) if I can find the time...

@AbbieNormal @cwebber

"do we need to rethink what Free software is?"

no..."we" would need to make up "our" own term! Free Software is taken. Although, it's a common tactic of subversives to redefine language for their divisive purposes.

The people disingenuously wringing their hands over this (in the examples given) are either using "permissive" licensed software in writing their own software, licensing theirs the same, and therefore allowing devs/businesses to leech and/or deny downstream user rights, and then whining when it happens to them by a competitor/outsider, while the whole time pretending the GPLv3/AGPL doesn't exist ... or they are "Righteous Authoritarians" who think it's OK to restrict the users' rights if the users' ideals don't match their own haphazardly defined "One True Way".

If you want to protect user rights and/or repel parasites, use a Copyleft license, but be forewarned! Freedom means people will do things you might not like, and that means Free Software might be used in ways you don't like. You may even have to put some thought into your business/funding model or even struggle for your ideals.

If someone doesn't accept that, that's their prerogative, and they may be Free Software users, they may even naively license their software under a Free Software license, but they are not actually Free Software *supporters*.

@AbbieNormal @cwebber The "natural persons" idea might have legs. Something like:

"This license applies only to natural persons. Other organizations should negotiate a separate license agreement"

Or maybe there could be a non-commercial criteria. This would have some blowback for small businesses shipping FOSS laptops or SBCs, etc, so perhaps its not a good solution.

Also Free Software isn't primarily supposed to be about the interests of developers. It's supposed to be about people's right to access public information. Libraries don't usually say that ICE employees can't borrow books (some might though) or that corporate borrowers must pay individual librarians.

@bob @AbbieNormal I think that a "natural persons" clause would blow up in one's face very quickly. There is no way Debian, for instance, could ship software then.

@cwebber @bob

someone has raised different concerns, too, in this regard, in the comments to the post

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!