I'm still curious whether the Free Software Definition's choice to require the ability to use free software for *any* purpose is entirely deliberate - is there any writing on why free software must permit being used to restrict people's ability to exercise the four freedoms?

(I agree with the argument that it would be extremely difficult to write a license that enshrined this without restricting legitimate use cases, but if someone were able to do so, /should/ it be free software?)

@mjg59

"you have the right to use this software for any purpose other than those which would inhibit the ability of others to exercise their own license"

@munin what if I use it to outcompete someone and they go bankrupt and no longer have a computer to run the software on

@ryanc Technically you can still use it for anything, as long as a specific technical requirement is met

@mjg59 Isn’t it sorta like asking “is it really freedom of speech if you’re using it to advocate taking away other people’s rights etc?” (yes, it is - at least in nations that actually respect that right).
It’s not a generally freedom (even in free software) if you can’t do with it as you wish - especially for things that may not be popular.

@abe no, only if you actually *do* use it to take the freedom away

@mjg59 i dont think theres any reason people fighting off their own genocide should be restricted by a license from doing so.

nearly all modern war is bullshit for profit and power and resources under the pretense of defence. but what happens when its actually defence?

also i dont think people committing war crimes care about licenses. if youre going to take them to court- take them to court for war crimes.

i dont think its worth keeping the state just so we can go after al capone for tax evasion.

also we are both copyright abolitionists who support copyleft to some degree- i do as long as it remains a viable mechanism for maintaining the amount of free software available- failing that, its useless.

i strongly feel we should address war crimes with tribunals, not licenses. there doesnt seem to be anything practical or effective about the latter.

the dod isnt even subject to copyright or patents. im against solutions that complicate things, but still dont work. its REALLY easier to say "for any use."

@mjg59 i also feel like your question is built on a stack of hypothetical and unlikely if not impossible scenarios, which is what i usually hate about these questions. like cards for humanity: free software edition.

getting companies to stop doing war crimes is an extremely important issue. i really think if we look at theory and praxis on stopping that, this talk of licenses is going to prove to be a very silly and pointless distraction every time. id love to hear some reason why it should be taken seriously, or what that could get us based on more than pure specualation.

just because you can make a license say something, doesnt mean it will do any good. that may even be the hard lesson of copyleft- which is why i brought it up for comparison.

as i said, im in favour of copyleft as long as it maintains software freedom.

im not negating anything that copyleft achieved in the past. when tactics for thwarting projects evolve, our defences need reevaluation and testing. if they prove robust AGAIN then great.

@trdebunked I think framing this in terms of war crimes or other inarguable human rights is the wrong way of thinking about it, especially since (as you point out) the practical effect is likely to be negligible. But, eg, is it necessary for Free Software to allow me to provision keys for DRM systems that aren't under the user's control? Under certain conditions GPL3 prevents me from imposing controls on the GPL3ed code, but doesn't stop me from using GPL3ed code to impose restrictions on others

@mjg59 people should spend more time talking about the failures of copyleft in modern situations, like the one with ibm red hat.

i am literally saying ibm red hat to distinguish it from red hat before ibm bought it.

i am also in favour of copyleft being treated as a security issue, as in securing the availability of / access to source code, similar to food security.

if that measure fails because the companies challenging it have found new ways, we should talk about these failures the same way we talk about security breaches.

when we stop talking about copyleft like a magical spell that makes you more free, and talk about it like what it is- a mechanism with a purpose it must either achieve or fail, it should be a little more obvious if these other strange license ambitions are a complete absurdity or not.

@mjg59 I realize, but it makes me wonder if it's just a matter of time before some tech company does something that provokes FSF into updating the GPL with a "you can't do DRM" clause.

@griibor @ryanc They require you be able to replace the GPL3 components, they don't prevent you from using the GPL3 components to constrain other things

@mjg59 @griibor @ryanc If GPL3 components are replaceable,you are always free to replace them with versions that do _not_ constrain other things, right? It is easy for proprietary software to work against machine owners, but same problem should not exist for GPL3 software. (GPL2 has it.)

@pavel @ryanc @griibor not if the GPLv3 component is out of your control (eg, it's running on a vendor's provisioning server)

@ryanc @mjg59 Is GPL an instance of DRM?