| I think you're getting your terms confused. > If we see freedom as being the absence of limitations, licenses like the WTFPL can really be considered the most free, and general arguments for free software can be applied appropriately. "Free", as defined by the FSF (and as used by those in the free software world), is a binary classification. There are four freedoms that free software must respect: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html If a license software respects all of those freedoms, it is a free license. Otherwise, it is non-free. Note that the ability to apply additional restrictions to existing software is not one of the four freedoms. > It really confounds me how RMS can reject DRM but be so supportive of his own freedom-limiting psychological DRM of sorts. I assume you're referring to the GPL. Understand that the GPL is meant to be a hack of the system: it's a software license (copyright) written by a group who fundamentally believes that copyright to software (as it is currently used) should not exist[0]. The GPL is a twist of copyright law to force it to do the exact opposite of what it was intended to do: instead of restricting others' freedoms, it preserves them. [0] The FSF does not actively oppose software copyright because doing so would harm the GPL (and therefore harm free software), but the origins of the free software movement are deeply tied to the question of whether or not software should be copyrightable at all - not so long ago, this was not an obvious question. And yes, for those who are wondering, it is certainly possible to have free software in a world in which software is not eligible for copyright protections. The GPL is meant as a hack around the current system, as we have it now. |