I think you're interpreting differences where there are none. The primary
difference between free software and open source is that free software is
about ethics, and open source is about a development methodology. The cases
where the OSI and FSF disagree are typically licenses which don't pose major
challenges to the open source development model, but which do pose unjust
restrictions on users to that end.
> the strongest difference between the Open Source Definition and the Free
Software Definition seems to be that: The Open Source Definition doesn't have
a provision against tivoization, restricted boot or digital
restrictions/rights management (DRM).
The GNU GPL version 3 is the only major license that effectively forbids
tivoization. No libre license forbids DRM; version 3 of the GNU GPL simply
states that no feature in the program is to be interpreted as an "effective
technological protection measure" under the WIPO treaties (DMCA, etc).
Restricted boot isn't addressed in any software license at all.
It's true that the OSI doesn't really speak out against these problems, but
that's because the OSI has nothing to do with these things. Remember, open
source is presented as a development methodology, distinct from any ethical
values or politics.
> the resulting work can contain, under the Open Source Definition at least,
mechanisms which deny the users' freedom towards the functional data like, as
stated earlier: tivoization, restricted boot or digital restrictions/rights
management (DRM), and other mechanisms which prevent the user to exercise the
freedom to use adaptations of the functional data (freedom 0).
Sure, this kind of thing happens all the time. Usually, an open source
proponent will use terms like "powered by open source" or "contains open
source" to distinguish such a case from something that is actually open
source.
The primary difference from the free software community is that we don't
respect proprietary programs being derived from libre software; we treat them
the same as any other proprietary program. This just comes down to open
source only being a development methodology; to an open source proponent,
inclusion of open source software in a proprietary program is only proof that
the development model has produced high-quality software, and thus a
flattering gesture.
> the Linux kernel source is free and open source, but some resulting builds
could be non-free software due to the way they're made[5]. This could be the
true reason as to why Linux-libre is needed.
No, you are mistaken. Linux, as distributed by Torvalds, contains proprietary
software in the form of firmware blobs, and thus it is proprietary.
Linux-libre just removes those blobs. It has nothing to do with how the
software was made or how it is compiled.
> Do you think that non-free software should be installed by us to a computer
user, if for example, we can't manage to buy hardware (either charging the
user, or by charity or crowd-funding between us) to replace the hardware
which requires non-free software to work?
In other words: "Is it better to help someone use their computer at all by
installing a required proprietary program for them, or is it better to refuse
to help them and leave them with a pastic brick?" There's nuance in the
answer, so I'm afraid there can't be any one that fits all cases. You have to
consider what that device will do for the person. If it will help them
survive somehow, then I would consider it morally wrong to refuse to help
them on the grounds that doing so will involve installing some proprietary
software. On the other hand, if it will give them only entertainment in
exchange for a very high risk of state surveillance, I would consider it
morally wrong to help them get it working. Others may disagree with me on
either of these cases. I suspect a lot of open source proponents would agree
with me on the former case, while they wouldn't see any moral dilemma at all
in the latter case.
> Do you think that we can recommend or teach the user how to use the
non-free software, specifically speaking (such as a command which is only
available to that non-free software)?
Teaching people things is never unethical. If you start to consider the
spread of knowledge to be unethical, you go down a slippery slope that leads
to acceptance or even advocacy of censorship. There might be things you'd
rather not teach people, though. Each individual has to decide on their own.
> Do you think that we can recommend or install non-functional data that
can't be redistributed non-commercially ("redistributed non-commercially" =
"shared")?
I think denying ourselves non-libre culture, and thus almost the entirety of
our own cultures, is not a useful way to enact change. What we should be
doing to this end is encouraging people to infringe copyright law by sharing
whenever they want to, and saying that unauthorized sharing (or "piracy") is
good. When enough people think that copyright shouldn't be a thing, it will
go away. So no, there's nothing wrong with giving your friend a copyrighted,
"all rights reserved" image.
> Do you think that we can play/watch/view non-functional data that can't be
redistributed non-commercially ("redistributed non-commercially" = "shared")?
See above. If you refuse to take any part in a culture dominated by
proprietary works, how can you possibly enact change within that culture? I
would say, take part in it, but pay little heed to the unjust law that is
copyright, and encourage others to do so as well.
