Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
* David Turner <novalis@novalis.org> [030311 00:46]:
> Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
> don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
> certain conditions.
I may not talk about freedom, but it talks about:
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
Having to distribute one's modifications heavily limits this freedom.
Having to distribute (or offer) the source code together with the
binaries one distributes is not only a much more minor requirement
(as it just increases the things to distribute, not forces an act of
its own), but also aims to keeping the freedom of the receivers of
the binary.
Even http://www.fsf.org/philosophiy/free-sw.html, where the four
freedoms are written, talks about:
#You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
#privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
#exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
#notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
#
#The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind
#of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer
#system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to
#communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.
The current discussion tends a bit to much to discuss, if a clause
forcing the users of the program to give the people interacting with
its output access to it, can be beneficial to free software in general.
Even if such a clause would be benefical (though I really doubt it,
as it has huge practical impacts, as many on this list noted),
this would still be no justification to remove such elementary freedom.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.
Reply to: