<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-signature">McCoy, you asked for a definition of
"software freedom" and Moming's response is similar to my
thoughts:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/29/2026 11:10 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:TY7PR01MB15702B5B2FF40C26015621ECBADAA2@TY7PR01MB15702.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com">
<p
style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;"><span
style="font-family: -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; color: rgb(29, 29, 43);">Here
is a simple test of my own:
<b>if 99% of the world's models were released under license X,
would our ecosystem be better off?</b></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>My premise is that the everyone benefits from a software commons,
so, does the license encourage or discourage sharing? "Software
freedom" is the ability to do anything you want with the software.
A few conditions/impairments are allowed because they indirectly
encourage the growth of the software commons - giving credit
(copyright notice/attribution), telling people what their rights
are (the license), the appropriate distribution of risk (the
"as-is" rep and disclaimer of warranty), and compulsory sharing
(copyleft). The balance is very delicate. It's questionable
whether the GPLv3, and then the AGPL, contribute to the health of
the open source software commons because they are commonly used as
the antagonist to encourage people to get a commercial license
instead. It does, though, seem that lever isn't as successful
anymore, since people are more willing to comply with the copyleft
licenses and these two licenses are more often being used for
their intended benefit. </p>
<p>This, I think, is the piece that's missing from the OSD. We've
seen the OSD gamed when it has been formally met but it is
nevertheless clear that the license is designed to give one entity
superior rights in the software or has mechanisms that will
discourage the use of the software. "Providing software freedom"
as a requirement is a check on that. </p>
<p>Pam</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a></div>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>