[Nix-dev] Re: Separating free and non-free packages, again

[Sander van der Burg - EWI]

For clarification: GPL incompatible licenses aren't non-free software licenses per se. There are GPL incompatible free software licenses as well. The MPL *is* a free software license, but incompatible with the GPL versions 2 and 3 (see the free software licenses link that you provided).

There is a different reason why Firefox isn't free software. Firefox includes proprietary branding which can't be used under the free software definition and in the past it also included a non-free crash reporter. That's the reason why IceCat is created.

With "free" we mean free as in the free software definition that the FSF provides (see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). There is also another notion of "free software" in the debian free software guidelines (see: http://www.debian.org/social_contract). And of course we also have the Open Source definition which is derived from the Debian Free software Guidelines (see: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd).

While most free software licenses are open-source licenses and vica-versa, both definitions have a different philosophy, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.

I don't want to argue about which definition is best on this mailing list, but I think it's good to clarify all this stuff a bit. Some people like the free software definition, others are more comfortable with the open source definition.

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: nix-dev-bounces at cs.uu.nl namens Tony White
Verzonden: di 24-11-2009 20:11
Aan: Ludovic Courtès
CC: nix-dev at cs.uu.nl
Onderwerp: Re: [Nix-dev] Re: Separating free and non-free packages, again
 
2009/11/24 Ludovic Courtès <ludo at gnu.org>:
> Hi Pjotr,
>
> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 at thebird.nl>
> writes:
>
>> There is also a group of non-free packages that is free for academic
>> use. Would it make sense to have a third 'type'?
>
> To be clear, this is about "free" as in freedom, not as in gratis
> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).  So presumably your
> example would count as non-free.
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo'.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev at cs.uu.nl
> https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>

Hi all,
The naming convention should actually be gnu-libre, libre and
non-libre, to avoid confusion IMO.
Because Ludo is saying classify free as gnu (And the gnu ideas leave
very little room for anything else,) It's pretty much mostly only gnu
software that can be placed in the nixpkgs free selection.
According to the fsf, free software licenses should be gnu gpl
compatible. See here :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
So Mozilla Firefox is classified as non-free because of the mpl. Hence
why gnu icecat exists. So as you can imagine, there is a whole host of
other software that is not strictly gnu free (gnu-libre.)
We know that there is plenty of free software available on the
internet to download, use, study and distribute that does not follow
the gnu definition, or even use a gnu license.
The gnu definition is clear but it's also niche and extremist.
I guess the decision has already been made but I just thought I'd
point out that everyone has the freedom to define what they believe
the term "Free software" Actually means if they have created software
that they believe is "Free." Worldwide law does not exist. The free
software foundation is a registered charity and not a law firm. The
gnu free software definition is a definition of what the fsf believe
free software should be and not a standard specification.

But Pjotr as far as any kind of libre software goes, being able to
just use the software without conditions, whether it's libre open
source or whatever; is a pretty important factor. So only free to use
if it's for academic purposes software would be classified as a
non-free selection in nixpkgs.
I don't think the guys want to break it down any further than free or
non-free, even though there is not always a fair or clear distinction
to draw between the two. Getting Nixos approved by gnu is actually the
reason why this discussion started so that the separation between free
and non-free software could be done.
So think : Can it be distributed to everyone by default? On a CD, DVD
or by http? As a first question when drawing your own conclusion but
then instead just ask : Does it follow the gnu ideas and is it
distributed under a gpl compatible license? To decide if software is
classed as gnu free software and suitable for the "free" selection in
nixpkgs. Because a no to any of those questions means it's non-free.

Thanks,
Tony
_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev at cs.uu.nl
https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.science.uu.nl/pipermail/nix-dev/attachments/20091124/12ede277/attachment.html