zlacker

>>gnufx+(OP)
He laments that users "don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest", but wasn't this the point of Open Source as compared to Free Software, to refocus the messaging from the user's freedoms to the economic benefit for companies?

The Free Software Definition mentions "user" 22 times and "freedom" 79 times, whereas the Open Source Definition has zero occurrences of these terms. It doesn't seem surprising that the user freedom message isn't getting through if you completely scrub it from the messaging.

>>ptx+a5
The freedoms we promote require users to run locally installed software, which people are no longer able to do for important applications.

>>kazina+4m
No it doesn't, that's what the AGPL is for.

>>ric2b+Q72
Unfortunately, the Affero changes to the GPL render it a nonfree license.

Free software licenses all have one thing in common: they speak only to redistribution, not to use. To use a free program, you only have to agree to the disclaimer (that if something goes wrong, it is at your own risk).

AGPL prohibits you from running a modified version of the program, if its functionality is publicly accessible, unless you release the modifications. That makes it an EULA.

No free software license requires you to release your modifications if the program is not redistributed.

The problem of siloed saas applications infringing on user freedoms cannot be attacked using copyright, without resorting to non-free licensing, which is an unacceptable.

Note that not everyone agrees that the GPL is a free license, in the first place. Software is maximally free if you can do anything with it you want, including incorporating it into proprietary software.

Many FOSS developers skip copyleft licenses and use MIT, BSD and such, myself included.

I can swallow the idea that GPLed software is free, but AGPL is out of the question.