-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12/19/2016 02:14 PM, Charles Cossé wrote: <snip>
If I write a 2 line program that prints "hello world" and don't license it under a FLOSS license, the user is still free to use it or not use it. According to FSF(E) doctrine, however, I am "unjust" and "immoral". Read the links you sent some posts back. FSF(E) makes no exclusion for asymptotic or trivial cases.
<snip>
If I may jump in with a perspective from "across the pond", I would argue that the only case in which libre software takes on a moral imperative is when said software becomes critical for business or life in general; i.e when using the proprietary package becomes largely unavoidable or a choice is presented to either use the proprietary package or to e.g. stay out of a particular field of study or business. For many of these smaller cases, there is no moral imperative simply because one is not forcing other people to use the package in violation of their personal beliefs and views on libre software / software freedom in general.
What would handle this quite nicely is something we already have in place for trademarks; specifically the concept of a "genericized trademark". Just as trademarks can be handed into the public domain if they become the primary public descriptor for a specific class of products, it might work well if the source code / rights for an application are handed into the public domain once that application becomes completely unavoidable for business and/or life. The bar for this would obviously be set fairly high, but it would seem to protect against the situation we see now where only one specific, proprietary software package is supported for tasks like tax filings or even life support; cases where a true moral imperative can be widely agreed exists.
- -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) https://www.raptorengineering.com