I like free software just as much as the next guy and I don't find it appealing to remove a freedom just for the sake of a blog post.
I mean, why is it implicit that I can run a program but e.g. distributing it is not?
Next time I get some free AI software I will find that I don't actually have the freedom to put it in my car/tractor/vacuum/etc because software license says so, not to mention the hardware locks that I would have to overcome.
Edit:
Example: BMW decides to release their AI software driving their car under a "free software" license. In this hypothetical situation, Audi would not be allowed to use BMW' software because the license restricts this.
But now, because _using_ the software in any way you wish is no longer an explicit freedom, nobody could claim that BMW software is not __FREE__
I know of at least one GPL licensed project for audio editing and synthesis that has an explicit ban on using it in commercial applications.
The GPL contains an optionally removable but there by default "or any later version" clause. This doesn't appear to remove that clause, and so the GPLv3 contains a "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term." clause, so it can just be deleted?
Or at least comment in addition to down voting :) I up-voted just to balance things out. Given the neutral fact-reporting nature of your comment, I would have just passed it over otherwise (no hard feelings, okay?)
> Or at least comment in addition to down voting :)
Yes, that is what I meant :)
> I up-voted just to balance things out.
I'm always hesitant to seem like I'm "complaining about down votes" when all I want is an actual discussion. I'm not trying to fish for anything; I honestly want to know if I'm wrong, but more importantly why!
For the same reason I've sometimes included a statement like "If you choose to down vote, I'd appreciate it if you'd also take the time to reply in a comment. I'm interested in hearing what you think!" I want to make clear that I'm not opposed to people down voting me. I want to improve my comments, and that's hard to do if you don't know what you're doing wrong.
Edit to add: Oh, and to be clear, I didn't read you as complaining.
I mean, why is it implicit that I can run a program but e.g. distributing it is not?
Next time I get some free AI software I will find that I don't actually have the freedom to put it in my car/tractor/vacuum/etc because software license says so, not to mention the hardware locks that I would have to overcome.
Edit:
Example: BMW decides to release their AI software driving their car under a "free software" license. In this hypothetical situation, Audi would not be allowed to use BMW' software because the license restricts this. But now, because _using_ the software in any way you wish is no longer an explicit freedom, nobody could claim that BMW software is not __FREE__
I know of at least one GPL licensed project for audio editing and synthesis that has an explicit ban on using it in commercial applications.