I just saw the item on slashdot.org that the Free Software foundation has updated its definition of free software (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). The changes seem to have come out of RMS's recent essay (which I swear I read on-line, but I can't find for the life of me) that appeared in "Open Sources". I don't have a diff, but the new document is generally excellent and contains some called-for clarifications.
Reading it, two trends occured to me: The FSF is making its free software definition more precise; and many Debian members want to make the Debian Free Software Guidelines (and the proposed revisions) less complicated. I think we should take a cue from this and consider unifying the two. I understand that this defies the conventional wisdom that there should be one statement that conveys the spirit of free software (the FSF's), and another that defines in specific terms what is free software (the DFSG). But read RMS's definition carefully--it's actually quite precise. With a few annotations, I believe it would do everything the DFSG (including proposed revisions) seeks to do. And you can't deny that it reads better than the DFSG. Here are a few points of comparison: - The FSF definition explicitly requires free use (see in connection with this the "Commercial Open Source Software" concept mentioned on slashdot.org (http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/04/1544211.shtml, which proposes fee-for-use "Open Source" software). - The FSF definition addresses revocation clauses. - The FSF definition addresses patent, export control, and other governmental restrictions. - Some of the "problematic" aspects of the DFSG (derived works under the same license and the new QT license; the patch clause) are covered with the phrase "if they don't effectively block your freedom to release modified versions". - Points 5 and 6 (discrimination clauses) of the DFSG are covered with the phrase, "anyone anywhere". You may disagree with my use of "covered" in the above. I do believe that RMS has succeeded, with a few well-chosen words, in making some of the fine points of DFSG redundant; but I know this is debatable. In some cases, specific examples and clarifications may be necessary. As you weigh this, though, keep the following question in the back of your mind: Is a precise, legalistic DFSG worth the trouble? At any rate, I believe that efforts to simplify the DFSG should draw inspiration from the updated FSF definition. Finally, I apologize if I appear to be an impudent newcomer disparaging the DFSG and the work that's gone into them. This is not the case at all--I am a big fan of the DFSG, I just yearn for the grace of RMS's statement. Andrew
