On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:29:21 +0100 (CET)
freemedia via Dng <dng@???> wrote:

> The freedom to NOT run the software, to be free to avoid vendor
> lock-in through appropriate modularization/encapsulation and
> minimized dependencies; meaning any free software can be replaced
> with a user’s preferred alternatives (freedom 4).

This is an excellent idea. The devil is in the details.

How much entanglement, and with what, renders a software unremoveable?

KDE is just as much of a black box of monolithic entanglement as
systemd, but getting rid of it is a simple matter of weening oneself
off its applications, and removing all its libraries and programs.

Systemd would have been the same were it not for Redhat's extreme
expenditures on both lobbying and maintaining a crew of six to keep it
somewhat usable. Actually, systemd would be nothing but a geek
experimentation thing, something like hurd, if it weren't for Redhat
bucks.

How does one specify by license how much should be spent on lobbying,
how much lobbying should go on, and how much corporate money should be
spent on development? What would that fifth clause look like?

We all know, as a practical matter, that few living humans can
compile, configure and install systemd. Few living humans can modify it
in any meaningful way. And the fact that it's so useless
de-incentivises even geniuses from modifying it. So as a practical
matter, it isn't free software, but how the heck do you put that into
words when anybody can download its source?

SteveT

Steve Litt
December 2019 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21