<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I am thinking why write this after all of this time about the
case mentioned.<br>
Also after the ElasticSearch or MongoDB case as example.</p>
<p>I guess that is very late as point of discussion and now he is
retiring from FSF.</p>
<p>What the FSFE can do about the topic of "Licensing Free Software
for commercial use and redistribution" and what is the point?</p>
<p>I think that is something very big and involve anyone in the
world but there isn't so much from OSI or other foundation about
that topic.</p>
<p>PS: Anyway I think that John is right on his points but I don't
see any solution or action.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature"><br>
<small>Daniele Scasciafratte - OpenSource MultiVersal Guy<br>
<a href="https://daniele.tech">daniele.tech</a> - <a
href="https://twitter.com/Mte90net">@Mte90Net</a> - <a
href="https://github.com/Mte90">GitHub</a> - <a
href="http://www.ils.org/">Italian Linux Society council
member</a> - <a href="https://people.mozilla.org/p/Mte90">Mozillian</a><br>
Mozilla Reps, Mozilla TechSpeakers, <a
href="https://profiles.wordpress.org/mte90">WordPress Core
Contributor</a>, <a href="https://fsfe.org/">FSFE member</a>,
<br>
<a href="http://www.libreitalia.it/soci/">LibreItalia member</a>,
<a href="https://www.wikimedia.it/">Wikimedia Italia member</a>
and <a href="http://lugrieti.linux.it/">LUG Rieti founder</a>.</small><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 02/07/21 09:19, Carsten Agger ha
scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d0036968-812c-4bef-7eb7-9b666568863a@modspil.dk">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>A really good discussion from the outgoing FSF director:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/spring/thinking-clearly-about-corporations"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/spring/thinking-clearly-about-corporations</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>For software to be considered free, its license must allow for
commercial use and redistribution. Yet, free software as a
social movement is to a large extent a struggle against
for-profit corporate control of our lives. </p>
<p>Instead of telling companies they are not welcome in free
software, we say they are welcome if they follow the ethical
principles -- the Four Freedoms. In our engagement with them, we
see both positive and negative impacts. We also see some parts
of the community being overly solicitous of corporate support,
and other parts describing even seemingly positive actions as
necessarily part of a long con to eventually extinguish free
software.</p>
<p>We need to think clearly -- somewhere between these extremes --
about corporate involvement, neither falling over ourselves to
invite it, nor being so endlessly suspicious that we miss out on
valuable contributions and ultimately fail to change the
practices of a significant sector of global society.</p>
<p>Clear thinking begins with seeing for-profit corporations for
what they are: for-profit organizations. They are not
individuals. A company's behaviors can change dramatically, not
just from change in the individuals they employ, but also from
changes in leadership, ownership, or business circumstances. </p>
<p>These are not hypothetical concerns. In free software, many
eyes are now on Red Hat, to see if its behavior toward free
software will change as a result of being bought by IBM. We saw
Redis Labs switch some of its software from a free license to a
nonfree one which ironically prohibits commercial re-use. We've
seen Google in the past decide to withhold the source code for
Android. We've seen Microsoft switch from publicly calling free
software a cancer to saying "We are all in on open source."</p>
<p>Companies can commit valuable resources to actions that benefit
the free software movement. They can hire developers, sponsor
events, fund advocacy and education, and provide infrastructure.
Individuals can convince their employers to release code under a
free license, and to distribute it with their products. They can
even persuade the company to pursue certification under the
FSF's <a href="https://ryf.fsf.org/" moz-do-not-send="true">Respects
Your Freedom program</a>.</p>
<p>These contributions are meaningful. The challenge is, how do we
realize them while avoiding the ways corporations can hurt free
software? We need to avoid financial dependency, keep our
standards high, and rely on a solid legal framework rather than
vague trust.</p>
<p>Avoiding financial dependency means making sure our operations
as free software projects and organizations won't be seriously
harmed by a corporation withdrawing its support due to a
disagreement or an ownership change. As an example, while we
appreciate and make productive use of all the direct corporate
patron support we receive at the FSF, in our last audited
financial year, it was less than 3% of our total revenue.</p>
<p>To keep standards high, free software projects and
organizations should be conservative in what we offer in return
for contributions. As with any donation, specific public
recognition and appreciation can make sense. But selling
conference keynotes, for example, takes the interaction out of
the realm of a donation and makes it a transaction. Plus, when
some events offer the moon in exchange for sponsorships, it puts
more pressure on other events to do so.</p>
<p>Relying on a solid legal framework means relying on copyleft,
and on explicit, enforceable statements about who holds relevant
rights when a contribution is made by the employee of a company.
The GNU General Public License (GPL) has enabled decades of
constructive engagement, because it requires companies to give
back improvements they distribute, under the same terms to
everyone, and its terms don't change even with new company
leadership or after an acquisition. For certain GNU packages,
the FSF gets additional assurances, in the form of copyright
assignments and employer disclaimers, to help make sure we can
effectively uphold these license terms according to the
Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement, and can
protect all of the program's users from patent or other
ownership claims by contributors' employers.</p>
<p>We should stay watchful and firm on these points. Over the last
year, I have seen firsthand multiple cases of Google employees
encouraging projects to relax their license from the Affero
General Public License (AGPL), because of Google's wrong-headed
policy forbidding any involvement by employees with AGPL
projects. If you receive pressure like this from any company,
stay strong and explain how copyleft is in the best interest of
all contributors to the project (also, tell us your story at <a
href="mailto:info@fsf.org" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">info@fsf.org</a>).</p>
<p>A person is capable of moral commitments outside of legal
agreements, but accountability for companies works differently.
This position isn't based on conspiracy, or on assumptions about
corporate employees. It is based on relating to for-profit
companies as the kind of entity they are. If we avoid
dependency, keep our standards high, and ensure the terms of our
work together are copyleft, we can edge the corporate sector
ever closer to fully embracing free software, which will in turn
help us move all sectors of society in that direction, securing
freedom and autonomy for all.</p>
<p><em>On a personal note, I'll be finishing my term as FSF's
executive director before the next issue of the Bulletin is
published, so this will be my last article. It's been an honor
to appear here, to have had this chance to contribute to
important ongoing conversations in this community. We'll be
publishing details about the transition to a new executive
director on fsf.org. Please continue supporting the work of
the FSF's incredible staff, some highlights of which are
described in the rest of this issue -- and all the future
issues to come!</em></p>
<em></em> <br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discussion@lists.fsfe.org">Discussion@lists.fsfe.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion">https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion</a>
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct">https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>