Re: (Really) Free Software future

[Paul Smith]

On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> 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. 

It's not clear (to me at least) what distinction you're hoping to make
between "Really Free" and "Not-So-Free".  Perhaps you could provide an
initial attempt at a set of criteria by which software would become
"Really Free", and discuss why GNOME and systemd don't meet those
criteria.  Until that happens I don't see what sort of reply RMS could
give.

Most likely such a discussion should be moved to gnu-misc-discuss: I
don't think it belongs on either of the current two mailing lists
until/unless there's an actionable outcome.

For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
and systemd are certainly not lock-in.

A non-commercial clause is directly opposed to the four freedoms (in
particular freedom 0).  In fact a number of otherwise-could-be-free
software licenses have been deemed non-free solely for this type of
thing.  Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "non-commercial
clause".

I don't think it's appropriate to state that software that doesn't
follow KISS can be considered non-free... how does one even measure
that?  By whose definition is software not "simple"?  Many people would
suggest that GCC, glibc, Emacs, or other flagship GNU packages are not
"KISS".  Similarly, there's no concrete definition of "*NIX principles"
that one can use.  Who will decide?  Again many people would suggest
Emacs, with its "editor as an OS interface" construction, doesn't
follow *NIX principles.  I don't see how these criteria can be used to
measure software freedoms, other than by each person individually
according to their own tastes.

As with all free software, if someone feels that some software is not
KISS (enough) or not *NIX (enough), they can avail themselves of their
four freedoms and modify that software as they like, and distribute it
to anyone else they like.