It's always a question of what the license authors believe is the
overall freedom for users. Let's imagine I concoct a brand new license called "NoDRM." My license allows you to distribute copies of the software, modify it, charge for it, do whatever you like provided that you do not add any kind of DRM to it.
I distribute Wood and Stones with the NoDRM license:
https://github.com/raganwald/wood_and_stones
Now somebody creates a new platform, let's say it's a watch that runs games. It has DRM built into everything it runs. It has a DRM-Store that allows free-as-in-beer apps. It is wildly successful, millions of people have these watches and everyone wants to play Go on them.
So: These millions of users want the "freedom" to run my app with DRM. I believe on principle that the world is more free if authors like me take a stance against DRM, which by definition limits freedom to every user downloading my game.
You can debate which position enhances freedom, but I think it's reasonable to agree that the author of a NoDRM license and the person choosing a NoDRM license believe they are enhancing freedom even as they deny users the right to use their app with DRM on it.
Personally, what I believe is that free software licenses--like the fictitious NoDRM--ensure that users are free to choose free alternatives. Most users won't make that choice, but then again most people aren't self-employed either. Nevertheless, our respective societies are considered free because self-employment is an option, and software is free if free software is an option.
I distribute Wood and Stones with the NoDRM license:
https://github.com/raganwald/wood_and_stones
Now somebody creates a new platform, let's say it's a watch that runs games. It has DRM built into everything it runs. It has a DRM-Store that allows free-as-in-beer apps. It is wildly successful, millions of people have these watches and everyone wants to play Go on them.
So: These millions of users want the "freedom" to run my app with DRM. I believe on principle that the world is more free if authors like me take a stance against DRM, which by definition limits freedom to every user downloading my game.
You can debate which position enhances freedom, but I think it's reasonable to agree that the author of a NoDRM license and the person choosing a NoDRM license believe they are enhancing freedom even as they deny users the right to use their app with DRM on it.
Personally, what I believe is that free software licenses--like the fictitious NoDRM--ensure that users are free to choose free alternatives. Most users won't make that choice, but then again most people aren't self-employed either. Nevertheless, our respective societies are considered free because self-employment is an option, and software is free if free software is an option.