Free software means that the users have the freedom to run, edit, contribute to, and share the software

We can't compete with Apple, we can't compete with Google, directly, in the field of resources. What we can eventually do is head count and heart count. We can compete on the ground of ideology because ours is better.

GPL "infects" other parts of a system to combat a work-around which was used to violate the software freedom of the user, by firewalling sections of GPL'ed code from the rest of the system.

The point of GPL licenses is to protect the user of the software, not the developer. If you want "protection" as a developer, use MIT (disclaimer of warranty). GPL "infects" other parts of a system to combat a work-around which was used to violate the software freedom of the user, by firewalling sections of GPL'ed code from the rest of the system. If you don't care about your users' software freedom in the first place, then (L)GPL is the wrong choice.

If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary (nonfree)

Users' control over the program requires four essential freedoms.

The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual control over the program

Either way, they give the program's developer power over the users, power that no one should have.

When a program respects users' freedom and community, we call it “free software.”

computer users' freedom—for users to control the software they use, rather than vice versa

However, the presence of nonfree software in the computer is an obstacle to verifying that the computer is loyal, or making sure it remains so.

For instance, the AMT functionality in recent Intel processors runs nonfree software that can talk to Intel remotely. Unless disabled, this makes the system disloyal.

Free/Open Licenses Non-free Licenses

I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives.

The problem is not about Open Source or Free Software. The problem is everything else.

free software is provided, "without liability". That rule should be enforced.

When publicly distributed, the open-source code is hidden behind layers of indirection bypassing any packaging/integration effort, relying instead on virtualisation and downloading dependencies on the fly. Thanks to those strategies, corporations could benefit from open source code without any consequence. The open source code is, anyway, mostly hosted and developed on proprietary platforms.

lots of commercial products because the reality is these often have a better UX and larger user numbers.

With the rising popularity of ebooks, it’s more important than ever that we have open hardware and software readers that work on our terms.

For consumers, the equivalent of "build or buy" could be called "ads or nerds". "Ads" meaning ad-supported services, like consumer Gmail or Facebook. "Nerds" meaning hobbyist services based on free software and commodity hardware.

Google allowed third parties to build their own Wave services (be it private or commercial) because it wanted the Wave protocol to replace the e-mail protocol.[2][16][17] Initially, Google was the only Wave service provider, but it was hoped that other service providers would launch their own Wave services, possibly designing their own unique web-based clients as is common with many email service providers.

is becoming a minority

Free as in ...? Points out that freedoms afforded by foss software to the average computer user are effectively the same as proprietary software, because it's too difficult to even find the source and build it, let alone make any changes. Advocates the foss developers should not think only about the things that users are not legally prevented from doing, but about what things they are realistically empowered and supported in doing.

as if the only option we had to eat was factory-farmed fast food, and we didn’t have any way to make home-cooked meals

except its codebase is completely incomprehensible to anyone except the original maintainer. Or maybe no one can seem to get it to build, not for lack of trying but just due to sheer esotericism. It meets the definition of free software, but how useful is it to the user if it doesn't already do what they want it to, and they have no way to make it do so?

Open source is the ideology that all software should be free.

Dans la science ouverte, une publication reste un tout que l’on ne modifie pas. Donc, les REL se rapprochent plutôt de la logique de l’Open Source.

Unfortunately, the part that deals with SOAP transformations is not free.

Open source software is cited as the first domain where networked open sharing produced a tangible benefit

Nothing about the Unix Philosophy explicitly relates to a culture of software sharing. However, it should be no mystery that it comes from the software community where we argue at length about the best way to make our programs properly Free. Software that is developed according to these principles is easier to share, reuse, repurpose, and maintain.

A free cultural work (free content) is, according to the definition of Free Cultural Works, one that has no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to:

At work, I cannot maintain this project. At home, I'd rather spend time with my children and on projects that I'm currently passionate about.

If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.

Express - 19 $ 🏃‍♀️ Skip the Review Queue 🕒 Published in 3 days 💌 Full Customer Support 💚 Support the team

Prior to version 6.0, BitTorrent was written in Python, and was free software.

Stallman has also stated that considering the practical advantages of free software is like considering the practical advantages of not being handcuffed, in that it is not necessary for an individual to consider practical reasons in order to realize that being handcuffed is undesirable in itself.

Free software thus differs from: proprietary software, such as Microsoft Office, Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides or iWork from Apple. Users cannot study, change, and share their source code. freeware, which is a category of proprietary software that does not require payment for basic use.

GitLab is moving all development for both GitLab Community Edition and Enterprise Edition into a single codebase. The current gitlab-ce repository will become a read-only mirror, without any proprietary code. All development is moved to the current gitlab-ee repository, which we will rename to just gitlab in the coming weeks. As part of this migration, issues will be moved to the current gitlab-ee project.

How does the licensing work in this new setup? Everything in the ee/ directory is proprietary. Everything else is free and open source software. If your merge request does not change anything in the ee/ directory, the process of contributing changes is the same as when using the gitlab-ce repository.

RAND terms exclude intangible goods which the producer may decide to distribute at no cost and where third parties may make further copies. Take for example a software package that is distributed at no cost and to which the developer wants to add support for a video format which requires a patent licence. If there is a licence which requires a tiny per-copy fee, the software project will not be able to avail of the licence. The licence may be called "(F)RAND", but the modalities discriminate against a whole category of intangible goods such as free software[11] and freeware.[12]

The Free Software Foundation suggests the term "uniform fee only" (UFO) to reflect that such "(F)RAND" licenses are inherently discriminatory.

Skype is a clear example: when one person uses the non-free Skype client software, it requires another person to use that software too – thus surrendering their freedoms along with yours. (Google Hangouts have the same problem.) We should refuse to use such programs even briefly, even on someone else's computer.

Both non-free software and SaaSS can spy on the user, shackle the user, and even attack the user.

The free software movement is a social movement with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedom to run the software, to study and change the software, and to redistribute copies with or without changes.

There are thousands of to-do list apps out there, in part because no system works perfectly for everyone. I’m not going to say todo.txt is the exception, and that it will work for everyone, because that would be crazy. But todo.txt is the most flexible tool I’ve come across. In part, this is because of the sheer number of clients available, but also because the simplicity lends itself to improvisation.

Why NewPipe is free

Our goal is to make the internet a more free (libre) place and open it for everyone

“the free software movement does this.” And again, I have to say: not quite. 

Convivial tools should be accessible — free, even.

The computer programming the child.”

unlike Adobe DPS, Inkling, or some other would-be competitors…it’s free.

if the group should decide to fork Moodle together

alliance of Moodle service providers that currently collaborate on Moodle-related projects of mutual interest

The four freedoms don’t limit us as creators — they open possibilities for us as creators and consumers. When you apply them to software, you get Linux, Webkit/Chrome, and WordPress. When you apply them to medicine, you get the Open Genomics Engine, which is accelerating cancer research and bringing us closer to personalized treatment. When you apply them to companies, you get radically geographically distributed, results-based organizations like Automattic. When you apply them to events you get TEDx, Barcamp, and WordCamp. When you apply them to knowledge, you get Wikipedia.

as of December 2013, 21% of websites are powered by WordPress. One-fifth of the web is built with a tool that anyone can use, change, or improve, whenever and however they want (even more when you count other open source projects

B2 was ultimately abandoned by its creator. If I’d been using it under a proprietary license, that would have been the end — for me, and all its other users. But because we had freedoms 2 and 3, Mike Little and I were able to use the software as a foundation

I’ve spent a third of my life building software based on Stallman’s four freedoms, and I’ve been astonished by the results. WordPress wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for those freedoms, and it couldn’t have evolved the way it has. WordPress was based on a program called B2/cafelog that predated it by two years. I was using B2 because it had freedoms 0 and 1

It’s free. 

freedom is also a deeply personal thing.