[breezykoi]

For a lot of people, FOSS is also very much the why. It’s not just a practical tool—it represents core principles like freedom, transparency, and collaboration. Those values are the reason many contribute in the first place.

[juliangmp]

Emphasis on the freedom, especially the freedom to use by anyone for any purpose.

If it took some people in the FOSS space this long that it also includes people, companies or purposes they disagree with, then I don't know what to tell them.

[duskdozer]

That's just one interpretation of freedom.

[breezykoi]

You are correct but in the context of free software, the FSF has been explicit about this ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"). Publishing software under a FOSS license imply that you agree with this definition of freedom.

[juliangmp]

Have you actually read one a Free/Open-Source license? Like for example the MIT[1] license:

  Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software [...] to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software [...]

Or the FSF's definition[2] of Free Software

  The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

Or the OSI's definition[3] of open source.

  5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
  6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

It's almost as if this concept is at the very core of FOSS.

[1]: https://mit-license.org/ [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms [3]: https://opensource.org/osd

[duskdozer]

Yes. Much as there's "MIT free", there's also "AGPL free", and many "MIT free" people consider the AGPL "non-" or less free due to restrictions, while "AGPL free" people consider it more free by demanding its derivatives also be free.

While "use for any purpose" has been included, I think considering purpose is a natural extension of this concept. Suppose there were some software project that aimed to practically eliminate the ability for users to share and use free or open software as it is today. Is it more free to allow such a project to be unrestricted from using other software, even if that project would lead to the destruction of free software otherwise?

[pixl97]

I mean, not really...

That's like saying "I have the freedom to kill you".

Saying that you can create something, then you reserve the 'freedom' to limit what everyone else does for it really doesn't fall under the word freedom at all.

[oblio]

The interpretation is simple and the complete opposite of "I have the freedom to kill you".

The software creator (human or AI) must give the user of its software the same freedoms it has received.

If it has received the freedom to view the original, readable, source code, then users should have the freedom to view the original, readable, source code.

If it has received the freedom to modify the source code, then users should have the freedom to modify the source code.

Etc.

It's not hard to follow for people who want to do the moral thing.

It's VERY hard to follow for people who want to make money (and ideally lots of it, very quickly).