Copyleft has never been a hard requirement for free software. If anything I feel like it stands against the deeper philosophy of given no restrictions on usage to the end user. I understand that's not the RMS-take, but he's not the only voice in this community.

▲

matheusmoreira a day ago | parent [-]

Moral opposition to proprietary software is a requirement though. It's what free software is all about. It's a question of values.

> he's not the only voice in this community

I'd say Stallman's opinion on free software is the only one that matters. He created it. He's essentially the only person extreme enough to make serious sacrifices just to live free of proprietary software. The dystopia he warned us about inches closer to reality with every day that passes.

And the fact is if you call Stallman's work "open source", you will offend him. I've seen videos of it.

Because they're not the same.

▲

jazzyjackson 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

RMS may have coined free software as a term and legal construct via licensing but he wasn’t the first to give software away for free

	▲	akimbostrawman 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>but he wasn’t the first to give software away for free They never claimed he was and it's irrelevant because free software has nothing to do with "giving software away for free" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

▲

bigstrat2003 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Moral opposition to proprietary software is a requirement though. It's what free software is all about.

Neither of those statements is true. Free software is about giving to others, and has never required being opposed to proprietary software.