I'm confused with some of the comments here - isn't OP asking why the BSD 3-Clause doesn't include a clause preventing patent treachery, which would be a good clause to have?
I disagree with your implication that using Steam on Linux makes it pointless to use Linux; I think that it is always better if you are able to replace some proprietary software in your life with freedom-respecting software even if you may still be using other proprietary software.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the FSF does actually acknowledge that replacing all of the proprietary software that one uses can be an incredibly disruptive, difficult process, and they encourage users to embark on the journey of complete freedom one step at a time - check out their Freedom Ladder campaign.
If you actively try to avoid software that is licensed under BSD or ISC, only
Gnu’s Marxist license, then that means you won’t use OpenSSH or the security
tools ported over from OpenBSD into both Linux and Android and will not use an
operating system or programs that have been compiled with LLVM/Clang.
OP did say "wherever possible", not "without any compromises"; I agree that it
would be very challenging to try and live on purely GPL software, but it just
seems like they're looking for potential alternatives. I think it's admirable
given their stance on libre software.
Gnu's Marxist license
This seems like such a blanket statement designed to put down copyleft advocates
"because communism". Do you think the right to repair movement - which advocates
for control over one's hardware (in contrast to software) - is also Marxist? I
consider these two movements as practically adjacent to one another.
I prioritize system security, and for that I only care about open source and
reject free/libre software due to all of its built-in political
implications. But also defend the right for people to make proprietary
software. I won’t use it, but defend people’s right to make it.
I ask the following more out of curiousity than argumentatively, because I still
don't quite understand this position: do you still encourage people to use libre
software in this case? If libre software is better than proprietary software,
why shouldn't we strive for a world where all software is libre? Is there any
reason for software to not respect its users' freedoms? I'm not saying that we
should all be hardcore GPL-only-or-die enthusiasts, either; rather that it seems
reasonable to aim for a life free of proprietary software, one step at a
time. In my opinion, copyleft can accomplish that better than permissive
licenses would.
I think you may be misunderstanding the "free" part of FOSS. FOSS - also known
as free software - is free as in
freedom, not beer (this confusion is also why I refer to it as libre
software). It has nothing to do with money - it is all about having control over
the software that you use.
Some here have already pointed out the massive proliferation of libre software
that forms practically the entire foundation of the Internet, but I would also
like to mention that there are some projects that might even say that being
libre software has made it more sustainable; for example,
here's a
talk about how the GPLv3 (a copyleft libre software license) keeps the Samba
project alive.
There are certain monetization approaches that are infeasible with libre
software, yes, but I would argue that this is only ever the case with practices
that are anti-consumer. Games as a service is a
good example of this; I think it's absurd you can buy a game that you should
rightfully own indefinitely, only for it to become literally borked because it
was specifically designed to always be connected to the game company's servers
which could be taken down at any moment. With libre software? You have access to
the source code, so it's not impossible anymore to get your own server running
if someone else hasn't already made the necessary modifications to make it
happen.
The philosophy of (and reasons to care about) libre software isn't quite the
topic of this post so I won't elaborate too much on it (unless you want, of
course), but feel free to take a look at
this page which discusses just
that if you're interested.
As @cwagner@lemmy.cwagner.me commented, the official definitions of free software and Open Source actually overlap quite heavily; the concerns made by many - including Stallman/the FSF and even Bruce Perens (author of the Open Source Definition) - involve the belief that Open Source has detached from the values associated with the free software movement.
If you are in fact specifically addressing the fairly small subset of open-source-but-not-free software, I would guess that the overlap is great enough for it to not detract from discussions, and "open source" is simply more commonly used.
Just a note, I'm also pretty sure some people in the comments have mixed up free-as-in-libre software for free-as-in-beer software, which is why I prefer to say "libre" instead.
I'm confused with some of the comments here - isn't OP asking why the BSD 3-Clause doesn't include a clause preventing patent treachery, which would be a good clause to have?
In any case, this is why the FSF recommends the Apache 2.0 license over other permissive licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
I disagree with your implication that using Steam on Linux makes it pointless to use Linux; I think that it is always better if you are able to replace some proprietary software in your life with freedom-respecting software even if you may still be using other proprietary software.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the FSF does actually acknowledge that replacing all of the proprietary software that one uses can be an incredibly disruptive, difficult process, and they encourage users to embark on the journey of complete freedom one step at a time - check out their Freedom Ladder campaign.
OP did say "wherever possible", not "without any compromises"; I agree that it would be very challenging to try and live on purely GPL software, but it just seems like they're looking for potential alternatives. I think it's admirable given their stance on libre software.
This seems like such a blanket statement designed to put down copyleft advocates "because communism". Do you think the right to repair movement - which advocates for control over one's hardware (in contrast to software) - is also Marxist? I consider these two movements as practically adjacent to one another.
I ask the following more out of curiousity than argumentatively, because I still don't quite understand this position: do you still encourage people to use libre software in this case? If libre software is better than proprietary software, why shouldn't we strive for a world where all software is libre? Is there any reason for software to not respect its users' freedoms? I'm not saying that we should all be hardcore GPL-only-or-die enthusiasts, either; rather that it seems reasonable to aim for a life free of proprietary software, one step at a time. In my opinion, copyleft can accomplish that better than permissive licenses would.
I think you may be misunderstanding the "free" part of FOSS. FOSS - also known as free software - is free as in freedom, not beer (this confusion is also why I refer to it as libre software). It has nothing to do with money - it is all about having control over the software that you use.
Some here have already pointed out the massive proliferation of libre software that forms practically the entire foundation of the Internet, but I would also like to mention that there are some projects that might even say that being libre software has made it more sustainable; for example, here's a talk about how the GPLv3 (a copyleft libre software license) keeps the Samba project alive.
There are certain monetization approaches that are infeasible with libre software, yes, but I would argue that this is only ever the case with practices that are anti-consumer. Games as a service is a good example of this; I think it's absurd you can buy a game that you should rightfully own indefinitely, only for it to become literally borked because it was specifically designed to always be connected to the game company's servers which could be taken down at any moment. With libre software? You have access to the source code, so it's not impossible anymore to get your own server running if someone else hasn't already made the necessary modifications to make it happen.
The philosophy of (and reasons to care about) libre software isn't quite the topic of this post so I won't elaborate too much on it (unless you want, of course), but feel free to take a look at this page which discusses just that if you're interested.
As @cwagner@lemmy.cwagner.me commented, the official definitions of free software and Open Source actually overlap quite heavily; the concerns made by many - including Stallman/the FSF and even Bruce Perens (author of the Open Source Definition) - involve the belief that Open Source has detached from the values associated with the free software movement.
If you are in fact specifically addressing the fairly small subset of open-source-but-not-free software, I would guess that the overlap is great enough for it to not detract from discussions, and "open source" is simply more commonly used.
Just a note, I'm also pretty sure some people in the comments have mixed up free-as-in-libre software for free-as-in-beer software, which is why I prefer to say "libre" instead.