@SuperDicq @lunareclipse @tiredbun There’s also the question of how easy it is to exercise the provided freedoms. If you get a massive codebase of spaghetti code that requires a set of esoteric tools to work with, exercising some of the freedoms might be very inconvenient. :gutkato_flucerba:
Similarly, if said software is tailored to serve a megacorporation’s interests and they’re making changes to it a hundred times a day, then even if you manage to change the software in a significant way, it will be difficult to make an impact with your changes if the ecosystem is still tied to the megacorporation’s original version (which has released two new versions in the meantime). :gutkato_kapturniĝas:
These kinds of software might meet the formal definition of free software, since exercising the four elementary freedoms is allowed and possible, but it might still go against the spirit of free software, should doing so be infeasible. :gutkato_fantomo:
Some people feel like free software is ‘not enough’ because it doesn’t guarantee software to truly remain in its users’ hands and not be free in name only. Problem is, you can’t really fix that with a better definition. Being allowed to use, modify and distirbute software is a binary question; you either legally can do it or you can’t. However, the ease of doing so is not binary and has no objective measure. :gutkato_malprofito:
People have tried coming up with additional restrictions, but I don’t think that’s a good direction to begin with. Instead of keeping the binary mentality of ‘free or non-free’ and trying to stretch it over a variety of vastly different concepts, maybe we should keep exactly the same concept – the four essential freedoms – and change our mentality from only looking at the licence to looking at how different projects and communities around them empower their users in the spirit of free software. :gutkato_renversa:
I don’t think we can shoehorn that approach into another binary distinction (like, say, ‘person-friendly or person-unfriendly’), but maybe we can settle on a more nuanced set of distinctions that will help people orient themselves between software which empowers them to exercise their freedoms and software which doesn’t (like free software licensing has to inform them about what they can or can’t do with (parts of) the code). :gutkato_kontenta: