Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom: > > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data, > including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's > own changes to Works written by others. > > I need to work on the wording of this fifth freedom a bit to make it > clear that it is fair for a person to whom Free Software is distributed to > demand access to the source code, including the source code to any > changes or improvements made by the person from whom one is receiving > the software. The point is that my usage of your Free Software does not > entitle you to access to or any rights in my improvements to your > software unless I distribute the Software back to you specifically.
I added a phrase to the end that I think addresses these concerns: 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data, including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's own changes to Works written by others, except as these changes or Works are willfully shared. To those who would argue that this is redundant because it is implicit that the right to privacy can be waived: It is necessary to clarify, as Branden Robinson suggested above, that the right to privacy may be de facto abridged by engaging in distribution. Otherwise licenses like the GPL, which can compel distribution of source to *everyone* who requests it if you commerically distribute a binary-only copy to *anyone*, would come into conflict with the definition. But, as Branden also said, its important not to open the barn door to required universal distribution under normal circumstances. To those who would argue that the wording isn't blunt enough: In Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the applicable definition of the conjuction "as" is: "in accordance with what or the way in which." Thus, the end of the fifth freedom could be paraphrased "except in accordance with the way in which these changes and Works are willfully shared." In the same dictionary, "willful" means this: "done deliberately: intentional." Note that by willfully distributing a GPL-licensed program one agrees to the compelled-distribution clause because it is, to use my proposed wording, in accordance with the way in which these changes and works are willfully shared. Similarly, one agrees to whatever requirements to offer source code an acceptable license imposes. To those who would argue the addition is tacky or obtrusive: I don't think it's either of those things, and it's certainly more attractive than potential alternatives that speak of "waiving [the] freedom" or "complying with requirements" or "refusing to distribute." Moreover it has the three qualities that are important in a document like a defintion of free software: it is short, it is directly comprehended, and it is firm in meaning. As others have pointed out, making a Debian list of free software freedoms, with one freedom more than GNU's list, would be a bit confusing and a bit untidy, but hardly enough so to rule out the idea. I think that the most compelling reason to add privacy to the list is to clarify that Debian holds the right to make private modifications or anonymous public modifications to software in as high a regard as the other freedoms; I consider as simply a handy fringe benefit that the statement would also condemn so-called spyware. As others have pointed out, spyware can be viewed as simply flawed -- and the other freedoms facilitate fixing the flaws. And privacy as a human right is, I think, too political and nonspecific to the project for an official stance to be warranted. To Branden: Do you have plans to try to add such a document to the Web site's statements of policy? What procedural hurdles stand in the way of doing so? (I'm new to Debian, so please forgive my lack sophistication about the project's inner workings.) -- Gregory K. Johnson http://gkj.gregorykjohnson.com/
