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

@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 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?