Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux
- From: Russell McOrmond <russell flora.ca>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:00:33 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Radical forms of non-discrimination are essential to free software in
terms of use, modification and distribution. If you make a license
that says that use, modification, distribution, etc is in *anyway*
tied to a particular political orientation, it is unambiguously not
free software.
I suspect we would do better to use the term "partisan" rather than
"political". FLOSS isn't tied to a specific political orientation
(left/right, specific party, etc), but it is an expression of a political
philosophy. Even the act of trying to be non-partisan is an expression of
a political philosophy.
Note that the lack of ability to restrict in a partisan way has come up
as a negative with FLOSS in some political parties. I've had folks say
that they want something to be free/libre for all citizens, but not
competing political parties. The same thing with folks who want software
to be free/libre for all citizens, but not for corporation, unions,
militaries, or whatever other types of organizations they happen to not
like that day.
FLOSS needs to be free/libre for everyone, including ones enemies.
See an old article I wrote for the Canadian Green Party:
http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=115
Regards,
Mako
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than
politicians should be bought. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/