That's just one interpretation of freedom.

breezykoi 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are correct but in the context of free software, the FSF has been explicit about this ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"). Publishing software under a FOSS license imply that you agree with this definition of freedom.

▲

pixl97 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, not really...

That's like saying "I have the freedom to kill you".

Saying that you can create something, then you reserve the 'freedom' to limit what everyone else does for it really doesn't fall under the word freedom at all.

	▲	oblio 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The interpretation is simple and the complete opposite of "I have the freedom to kill you". The software creator (human or AI) must give the user of its software the same freedoms it has received. If it has received the freedom to view the original, readable, source code, then users should have the freedom to view the original, readable, source code. If it has received the freedom to modify the source code, then users should have the freedom to modify the source code. Etc. It's not hard to follow for people who want to do the moral thing. It's VERY hard to follow for people who want to make money (and ideally lots of it, very quickly).