Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works

[Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu>]

In article <[🔎] 1055508131.15737.130.camel@thanatos>, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> 1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
>> 2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs.  Access to the form of the
>                 ^to
>>    work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
>>    "source code"), if applicable, is a precondition for this.
>> 3) The freedom to redistribute copies of the Work.
>> 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
>>    one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form.  Access
>>    to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications,
>>    if applicable, is a precondition for this.
> 
> What's the difference between "change ... for any purpose" (#4)
> and "adapt ... to one's needs" (#2)?  If they mean the same thing
> then one of them is superfluous.  It they mean different things
> then the difference should be made clearer.

One clear difference is that the FSF finds the FDL license to be free
on their terms, since it can be adapted to fit any substantive
modifications to the program ("adapt to one's needs"), while Branden
(and many others from Debian) would reject the FDL, since there is
text which is unmodifiable and unremovable (it cannot be "changed for
any purpose").

I think this follows from the wording difference; I don't think it
needs any clarification.  (And I like the change.)

On the other hand, it will certainly get confusing to have two
slightly different but nearly identical lists of freedoms around.  But
maybe that's OK.

Peace,
	Dylan,
	NADD