social.coop is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects. If you are interested in joining our community, please apply at https://join.social.coop/registration-form.html.

Administered by:

Server stats:

502
active users

A random thought struck me. Freedom 1 of the four software freedoms says: "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1)." and it seems to only care about the end result "so it does your computing as you wish". This leads me to believe that it should be possible to limit the development models through licensing as long as that model can produce that result in theory. Has this loophole already been discussed?

For example, a license could say: "you can change this to do anything you wish, as long as you are not using SCRUM to get there" or "you can change this to do anything you wish, as long as you are not using a proprietary code repository platform". In both, anyone still have the freedom to get to the end, but the road there is limited.

those restrictions don't strike me as compatible with free licensing. ISTM the "as you wish" isn't supposed to be interpreted that narrowly.

@lxo I know it is not supposed to. It is kind of my point that it does anyway as generous interpretation shouldn't be needed in definitions like these.

*nod*. I really don't think it's generous though, it's the one that seems most natural and best fit to me. regardless, interpreting stuff without the guiding context, such as the entire free software definition with all its sections and examples, is error prone. I kind of doubt this interpretation would survive this sort of context-fitting test. but whether or not it does, it might be a bug worth pursuing and fixing. do you have a suggested wording to fix it?
Jan Ainali

@lxo I think you are likely right, and then an ambiguous license wouldn't be deemed to be aligned.

I haven't thought much yet but something like this might be enough "The freedom to study how the program works, and in any manner change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1)."

it occurred to me that this might be too broad
there's the (in)famous (to me) example of the free software license incompatible with itself, that required modified versions to be distributed in the form of patches, so one wasn't permitted to merge separate forks. it was considered a free software license, but it would seem to be barred by the "in any manner"