Hi, We all know what "free/open-source/libre software" means and we are generally capable of distinguishing between "open source" and "free" and so on, and figuring out if a given license is "free" and to what degree.
According to FSF (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), there are "4 freedoms": * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. I was just asked a question (by a friend who is very knowlegeable about free software himself) that made me stop and think. I'll paraphrase his original question - it was short and to the point and it did not refer to the FSF "4 freedoms". The 2nd freedom ("Freedom 1") is compound and not atomic. "Study how the program works" (e.g., from sources) and "change" are two different things. I find this very curious, it seems natural to me to separate passive and active access, but they are bundled together. Is there an "official" term for software that comes with source code but does not allow one to modify or distribute it (modified or not)? [This was the original question that fueled my curiosity.] Are there licenses that provide the code but do not allow (even private) modifications? Are there licenses that allow private modifications but not distribution of either original or modified program? My search did not yield much. The "Open Source Definition", the "Debian Free Software Guidelines", the "Free Software Definition" all require redistribution. As far as I understand, "public domain" does not require opening the source. I looked at many license comparison lists and there is always redistribution, modification, etc. The only example I found was Microsoft's "Reference Source License", http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/referencesourcelicensing.mspx. Does anyone know if "Reference Source License" is a generic term or just a specific license from M$? I did not find any license that allows private modifications but forbids redistribution. It is quite possible I missed something. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | o...@goldshmidt.org _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
