as for Calc and the math library

[Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>]

> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 1:59 PM
> From: "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: as for Calc and the math library
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
> GPL3 explicitly does not place rules on what changes you can make
> in a covered progra _for your private use_.
> 
> A user can lawfully write a nonfree program for private use that
> dynamically links in a GPL3-covered module, just as a user can
> lawfully copy GPL3-covered code plus nonfree code into a program for
> private use.
> 
> However, _distribution_ of such a nonfree combination would violate
> GPLv3.
> 
> -- 
> Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
> Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
> Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Despite this clarity, there's a recurring problem with the community:
some maintainers go beyond the requirements of the GPL3 by creating
additional barriers within the source code to prevent what they perceive
as undesirable use cases.

This could involve adding checks to verify that only certain libraries
are used or implementing "allowed-lists" to restrict what modifications
can be made or with what the software can interact.

It's quite right to argue that these additional obstacles are
unnecessary and, in some cases, counterproductive. The GPL3 already sets
clear boundaries — if a nonfree module or library is being used in a way
that is kept private and not distributed, it is perfectly legal under
the license. The problem arises when maintainers attempt to enforce
additional restrictions that go beyond the license’s requirements,
sometimes under the misconception that doing so aligns with the GPL's
spirit.

For instance, claims that using a nonfree library with a GPL3-covered
module is inherently illegal reflect a misunderstanding of the
license.  As clarified, such usage is only problematic if the
software is distributed. Unfortunately, these misunderstandings can lead
to a unpleasant environment where maintainers unnecessarily police the
actions of users or other developers, potentially stifling innovation
and cooperation.

Moreover, some maintainers might believe they are in a better position
to judge what is or isn't permissible under the GPL3. While it’s true
that interpreting the nuances of free-licenses requires a good
understanding, dismissing the judgments of others, such as those with
significant experience or legal knowledge, is unproductive. The GPL3 was
crafted to empower users, not to restrict them unnecessarily, and the
community should focus on upholding that ethos rather than imposing
additional, unwarranted barriers.