1. 0

  2. 7

    IDK even my mom has an easy time understanding the four rules. They don’t really require an understanding of programming at all. If you understand lawnmowers you can understand the four rules.

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

    The freedom to study how the program lawnmower works, and change it so it does your computing lawn mowing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    The freedom to redistribute copies (of the design) so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

    The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    Frankly they seem easier than his 9 oddly specific descriptions.

    1. 1

      I like your summary for its simplicity. I still think cars are best example since (a) everyone’s needed to fix one with the dealers wanting to charge too much versus independent party and (b) many modifications happened over time to improve them in many ways. Just bring up speed (“added turbos!”), fuel economy (“made it a plugin!”), safety (“not exploding like Pinto’s”), or just appearance (“put your business info on it!”). It became even more important comparison when John Deer et al tried to get the copyright office to ban reverse engineering their computers for 3rd party modifications. Sneaky bastards.

    2. 1

      I could see pieces of your list being used in supporting material for the basic freedoms. For instance, the format part can be supporting using or modifying something however one wishes. In that case, to personal taste or even needs in case of, say, a visual disability. The upgrade thing differentiating between security and feature updates is a good point. It might need a fork with new party doing only security updates to do that, though.

      Free software doesn’t by itself provide transparency. I covered this a bit in this comment where I show review and trust in reviewers are the cornerstone. FOSS can help on it, though. I’m putting knowing where data is on user apathy, though, as they prefer plaintext or ad-driven solutions in mass. I’m not buying right to work part with all the over and underqualifieds I’ve seen by companies trying to hire cheaper labor, including H1-B’. Then, there’s all the CompSci folks who are incentivized to write stuff of low value without code backing it up. Lots of underutilized or poorly-utilized talent out there.

      The quality assurance part might be due to the software and security people as much as anything. Most keep saying it’s impossible to certify software to be pretty secure. Both safety and security have been done before with certifications with results better than FOSS or markets on average. Some really strong ones. I fight against that misinformation a lot with little results. It’s got a lot of momentum with few having heard of prior successes.