On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > Perhaps we should divide free software into two groups: 1) Really > > free software where Freedom 1 applies and 2) not-so-free software > > where Freedom 1 does no longer applies. > > > > Here gnome and systemd are in the second kind. > > Both GNOME and systemd are fully free software that support all four > freedoms, including freedom 1.
Still, I think we need to differentiate between Really Free Software and Not-So-Free Software. Maybe even to add one more freedom: For example adding a, non-commercial, non-lock-in, non-proprietary, *NIX and KISS-friendly, clause. Software development is nowadays too vendor driven (and purposely made complicated), ruling out contributions from people not employed by companies working full-time. > > Especially systemd, even if GPLed, is currently swallowing most of > > free software excluding large groups of people to make > > contributions. > > Neither excluding upstream contributions nor "swallowing" other free > software projects violate any of the four freedoms. > > As long as you are able to run the program, access the source code, > modify the source code as you like, and distribute both the original > and your modifications to others, then your freedoms are preserved. See above. A redefinition of free software is really needed, independent of RMS being leader of GNU or not. And funding for Really Free Software can be steered by FSF towards the goal of Really Free Software, leaving non-complying companies out of funding. (whoever will take the lead of FSF after RMS). I'd really like RMS to reply on these issues, adding him to this email recipients too. Thanks!
