copyleft software, not "free" software [LWN.net]

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 7:46 UTC (Sun) by rsidd (guest, #2582)
In reply to: copyleft software, not "free" software by marcH
Parent article: Toward a "modern" Emacs

Apart from what you say, the FSF lists BSD/MIT/similar licences as free software. Copyleft has no role in RMS's or the FSF's definition of free software.

to post comments

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 17:05 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (5 responses)

> Copyleft has no role in RMS's or the FSF's definition of free software.

... which is amazing considering he literally invented the entire "less-free-for-developers and more-free-for-users" software category, and probably the super smart "copyleft" word for it too. How come _he_ did not drop the super confusing "free" terminology? All his followers would have... followed, as they do when they use "free software" now, which helps feeding the never ending stream of debates where the basics seem to be re-explained over and over again.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 17:15 UTC (Sun) by rsidd (guest, #2582) [Link] (4 responses)

RMS's definition of "free software" is clear enough, and non-copyleft licences like BSD/MIT/Apache entirely qualify.

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

Various comments on copyleft and non-copyleft licences are here. Note that objections to individual non-copyleft licences are not for their permissiveness but to unclear names (what does "BSD licence" or "MIT licence" mean?) or GPL incompatibility (eg the BSD licence with advertising clause; CDDL; APSL). The Apache 2.0 licence is strongly recommended as a permissive free software licence.

In short, this entire thread is a red herring, based on a misunderstanding of "free software".

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 27, 2020 17:26 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> In short, this entire thread is a red herring, based on a misunderstanding of "free software".

Misunderstanding as in the gazillions other threads before it and in all the future ones too. I'm impressed by how quickly you found and posted the references, you must be really used to that :-)

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 28, 2020 2:38 UTC (Mon) by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492) [Link]

> community

The problems is that RMS defines community as a) "the keybindings I personally enjoyed in 1975 long before industry and sanity discarded the concept of 'cording keyboard' " b) a particular non-technical and highly idealistic political philosophic and c) if yoiur a women, falling over yourself to get to me.

Which is, I grant, a *particular* community, but not one that is welcoming to pretty much anyone who has first used a computer since either the IBM PC or Apple MAC was introduced.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Sep 29, 2020 10:19 UTC (Tue) by smcv (subscriber, #53363) [Link] (1 responses)

With hindsight, it's unfortunate that the originators of the free software term didn't talk about "software freedom" rather than "free software", which would have meant the same thing while avoiding the whole free beer/free speech ambiguity.

Regarding the difference between free software and copyleft: free software (or software freedom if you prefer) is a goal, but copyleft is one of several possible strategies for achieving that goal (permissive licensing is another). Copyleft is closely associated with the term "free software" because the FSF has chosen to use copyleft as their main strategy, but it isn't actually their objective.

copyleft software, not "free" software

Posted Oct 5, 2020 21:05 UTC (Mon) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> With hindsight, it's unfortunate that the originators of the free software term didn't talk about "software freedom" rather than "free software", which would have meant the same thing while avoiding the whole free beer/free speech ambiguity.

... and also avoided any copyleft/permissive ambiguity - thanks!

BTW "Software Freedom Conservancy" is an exceptionally clear name.

While their top goal seems to be copyleft enforcement, funny enough they don't seem to request copyright assignment before sending a patch. Their website also seems less focused on philosophy and more on getting copyleft things done but maybe that's just my impression.