Re: [Fsfe-uk] Software patent - any action?

[MJ Ray]

Sorry, this was stuck in a "postponed" folder.  I think the following part
is still worth posting, though.

Chris Croughton <address@hidden> wrote:
> In other words, as you said originally the difference is basically one
> of philosophy and definitions of words.  The "Free Software" community
> has got a specific meaning of the word "free" and often uses it as a
> bludgeon against those with a different philosophy.

Please!  This and your other message where you suggested that GPL is not "as
free" as some other licences will cause confusion.  Let's be crystal clear
about what we mean by freedom.  You can get the definition from many web
sites, including AFFS's own, which use the literal words from the Free
Software Defintion.  Any Free Software must give users:

    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the
source code is a precondition for this.

That is not up for debate on this list.  If a program is under a licence
that meets all these four conditions, it may described as "Free Software". 
If it does not, it is not.  This is a yes/no 0/1 situation.  There is no "my
licence is more Free Software than yours" debate to be had.  It either is or
isn't.

Note that Free Software may still impose *other* conditions on licensees. 
The most common one is the requirement for all licensing of derived works to
either use a particular licence or otherwise require these four freedoms to
be passed on to all future licensees.  This is known as "copyleft".  The GPL
is a copyleft licence.  The BSD licence is not.

Whether or not you prefer a copyleft licence is debateable.  I strongly
believe that most licensors would benefit from a copyleft licence.  You
don't, I think.  As correctly described, there are those who resent the fact
that the only way to create a non-copyleft implementation of a copyleft work
is to clean-room rewrite it.  So be it.  For now, let's rejoice in our
common interests in Free Software and work towards our common benefit.

-- 
MJR   http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   IM: address@hidden
      This is my home web site.   This for Jabber Messaging.

How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.