| Message 01686 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 58/129 L17 | [In index] | ||
| [First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
| [Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:00:33PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:Radical forms of non-discrimination are essential to free software in terms of use, modification and distribution. If you make a license that says that use, modification, distribution, etc is in *anyway* tied to a particular political orientation, it is unambiguously not free software.I suspect we would do better to use the term "partisan" rather than "political". FLOSS isn't tied to a specific political orientation (left/right, specific party, etc), but it is an expression of a political philosophy. Even the act of trying to be non-partisan is an expression of a political philosophy.
Sure, this sounds fine. This has never been the grounds for misunderstanding in my own experiences but I can see how this term is more precise.
Note that the lack of ability to restrict in a partisan way has come up as a negative with FLOSS in some political parties.
This isn't limited to political parties. The Greater Good Common License and many political organizations or politically oriented organizations have trouble with this. The troublesome "non commercial use clause" is the cause of the majority of "almost free" software out there. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako debian.org http://mako.yukidoke.org/
| Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 58/129 L17 | [In index] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Message 01686 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |