> Now let's say somebody in a corp uses the software for some minor task. Are they allowed? Is it the person or the corp "using" it?
Not allowed.
>If the latter, let's say me and my buddy both use the software individually, legally. We sit in the same room. Ok? We are together working on some non-profit project not involving the software. Ok? Now we use the software for it. Ok? Niw we make a profit. Ok?
All allowed.
The answer to all those questions are pretty simple and straight forward. I'm not sure why you're trying to muddy the waters here.
>RMS would be pretty opposed to these ideas.
RMS has failed catastrophically in his goal of letting users have access to the source code of the applications they use. I don't really care for what he has to say.
The license is only granted to natural born persons.
The only people who don't grasp this simple fact are the ones who have never worked in a corporation. They very much own and run things legally. Which is why when the liquidation man comes a knocking you don't lose your shirt for owning stock in Enron.
The best I've been able to come up is that freedom 0 applies only to humans. If a non-human entity is running the software, viz. some sort of corporation, then it is not allowed to without a (expensive) license.
I want to make the world better for people, not for Amazon.
Not allowed.
>If the latter, let's say me and my buddy both use the software individually, legally. We sit in the same room. Ok? We are together working on some non-profit project not involving the software. Ok? Now we use the software for it. Ok? Niw we make a profit. Ok?
All allowed.
The answer to all those questions are pretty simple and straight forward. I'm not sure why you're trying to muddy the waters here.
>RMS would be pretty opposed to these ideas.
RMS has failed catastrophically in his goal of letting users have access to the source code of the applications they use. I don't really care for what he has to say.