I will try -- free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning.
Richard Stallman and GPL discussions certainly do mention ethics as part of the considerations. I agree that no person is completely disjoint from ethical considerations, with intelligence. But as this thread explores, there are multiple points of view, unclear and untested aspects legally within multiple legal jurisdictions.
But you make a large leap when you say "they should not mention" .. It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one, it is more in common with persuasive, political speech than logic there.
As noted by others, a useful simplification is to focus on one particular LICENSE at a time. Is this license ... x y z. As Google did long ago and as Github started to do and as the OSI does and as FSF does... like that.. not debate on the entire concept, but instead focus on the implementation, as software does.
free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning.
I was not talking about free software as in the adjective free applied to software. But free software as in the term from the free software movement where its members call code that follows their ideals of what is ethical free software.
It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one
The logical reason is that free software is less inclusive because it considers most SWE unethical for working on proprietary software. If the term open source works just as well and is more inclusive it should be used.
Comments
I will try -- free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning.
Richard Stallman and GPL discussions certainly do mention ethics as part of the considerations. I agree that no person is completely disjoint from ethical considerations, with intelligence. But as this thread explores, there are multiple points of view, unclear and untested aspects legally within multiple legal jurisdictions.
But you make a large leap when you say "they should not mention" .. It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one, it is more in common with persuasive, political speech than logic there.
As noted by others, a useful simplification is to focus on one particular LICENSE at a time. Is this license ... x y z. As Google did long ago and as Github started to do and as the OSI does and as FSF does... like that.. not debate on the entire concept, but instead focus on the implementation, as software does.
I was not talking about free software as in the adjective free applied to software. But free software as in the term from the free software movement where its members call code that follows their ideals of what is ethical free software.
The logical reason is that free software is less inclusive because it considers most SWE unethical for working on proprietary software. If the term open source works just as well and is more inclusive it should be used.