On 27/02/2008, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 27 February 2008 17:13:41 Dave Crossland wrote: > > Software freedom is very tightly defined - > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > > Actually that is just one definition of software freedom.
URLs of others? :-) http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php is the other well known "definition," but is actually a derived work of some guidelines - http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines - that are based on the GNU definition. I just checked the OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD websites and can't see any definitions there. > Just because you > don't agree with others doesn't mean there is only one definition. You have > been around long enough to know that not everyone actually agrees with the > definition you refer to above, viewing it as either too limited or too > constrictive depending on the groups discussing it. I honestly haven't ever spoken to anyone who didn't agree that what constitutes software freedom is defined at that URL. There is a strong historical reason for that, I think; in the same way that the "organic farming movement" was launched, but all farming just prior to it was organic, many programmers before 1984 released free software (TeX is the famous example as its still going) but the GNU project launched the software freedom movement as a movement, and defined software freedom explicitly while it had just been loosely 'in the air' before. Can you recall any details (or even fish out URLs) of discussions where those groups explain how this is too limited or too constrictive? > Heck there are multiple definitions of the word freedom in itself. The OED > for > example lists 15 main definitions of the word, and if you include the > sub/alternate in each it lists 25 definitions in total. Sure; that's why that precise definition exists - not all of those freedoms are relevant for software. > Other bases for ethics including for example the stoics (or neo-stoic) gives > a > rock solid, 100% ethical definition of freedom which when applied to software > would probably give rise to a definition which would mean the BSD license > is "more free" than the GPL license because it does not seek to exert power > over the recipient. The BSD license allows middle men to exert power over recipients, so the average of freedom enjoyed by the total number of users is less. Therefore someone might say "the BSD license is less free than the GPL" to try and communicate this. But that would be a very confused thing to say, (no offense intended) as equally confused as "the BSD license is "more free" than the GPL," - because both are free software licenses. > Yes, the BSD leaves the recipient the ability to exert power over others, but > a BSD user is explicitly waiving that option (unlike a GPL user) to exert > power over others (as they should have freedom to do so). I agree, and I don't object to people using BSD licenses (since they are free software licenses) but I don't recommend them because of the middle-men problem. > Also, the fact that > there are still BSD licensed TCP/IP stacks after nearly 30 years, that would > tend to suggest that the negative impact is less than you might expect. That a BSD licensed project of any kind can be maintained for a long time is to be expected; but because proprietary forks happen, non-copyleft projects have very slow rates of innovation. X Windows and TeX are projects that suffer from this and have similar vintages. > (matching the stoic concept of dispreferred rather than that of good/evil) I > suspect that the reason for that is the very simple fact that people are free > to produce alternative implementations to achieve the same goals. (meaning > the really preferred aspect here is openly implementable standards - which of > course requires access to said standards) People are always free to produce alternative implementations (forgetting legal restrictions like patent and DRM) > Anyway that's a digression - you are saying above that you use a commonly > referred to definition, however it is not the only one in use. Saying that > any single definition of freedom is "correct", and "defined as right" misses > the fact that it's one of the most contested concepts in history, mainly > because everyone wants it for the obvious reasons. This is just my point - I'm not interested in freedom in general, because its so ill-defined and over-used by everyone and their nasty national dictator that its almost meaningless. I'm interested in software freedom, which is tightly defined, and its common to attempt to evade the issues of software freedom by venturing off into the wooly waters (er) of freedom in general. > I'd like the freedom to run whatever software I like on my own machine I like > for example, without people dogmatically telling me I'm wrong for doing so. Free speech rights overrule that, but er, you're free to ignore us :-) (Although I suppose you can get me busted for stalking you... LOL) > Even if I choose to use a proprietary program on a open source operating > system. Sorry, I'm not wrong, Sorry, you agree not to share with me, which is wrong. > it's my choice. You don't have to make the same > choices. That's a form of freedom. Heck, it's another form of software > freedom - "the choice to pick and choose whatever software I want to use". That is, as you say, choice, not freedom. > Furthermore, you can easily argue that there's nothing wrong with picking > and choosing whatever tool is convenient and easy to prototype ideas that > could be developed as services or tools, since that's what the person doing > it wants the freedom to do. Developing prototypes that depend on proprietary software is misguided because it is likely to lead to requiring people to use proprietary software. > However I feel (note: opinion) it would be only > appropriate to ship as a *service* in a form that allows for multiple > reimplementations. (the simplest way of course there to be to define an open > definition for access to said service which can then evolve into and open > standard) If the BBC publishes information in "open" formats/protocols that have only proprietary software implementations, it ought to be criticized and pressured to start or contribute to the development of free software implementations. > Dogmatically going around *judging* other people's views on a very simplist > narrow view of freedom smacks to me of not be able to have independent > thought. Which is odd, because you don't normally come across that way, > when you do think for yourself. The stoic freedom you have described seems like a narrow view of freedom and smacks to me of not be able to have independent thought. Hmm? ;-) -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion, not that of any employers past or present. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
