Comment by juliangmp
2 days ago
Have you actually read one a Free/Open-Source license? Like for example the MIT[1] license:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software [...] to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software [...]
Or the FSF's definition[2] of Free Software
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
Or the OSI's definition[3] of open source.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
It's almost as if this concept is at the very core of FOSS.
[1]: https://mit-license.org/ [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms [3]: https://opensource.org/osd
Yes. Much as there's "MIT free", there's also "AGPL free", and many "MIT free" people consider the AGPL "non-" or less free due to restrictions, while "AGPL free" people consider it more free by demanding its derivatives also be free.
While "use for any purpose" has been included, I think considering purpose is a natural extension of this concept. Suppose there were some software project that aimed to practically eliminate the ability for users to share and use free or open software as it is today. Is it more free to allow such a project to be unrestricted from using other software, even if that project would lead to the destruction of free software otherwise?