On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt <p...@goldshmidt.org> wrote:
> 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? > > I was once offered something similar. The source code was to be given, as insurance in case the company stopped existing. However, we were not to access the code unless such a thing happened. > Are there licenses that allow private modifications but not > distribution of either original or modified program? > > Of course - this is where you sign an NDA to get the code. > 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 > -- Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda. http://ladypine.org
_______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
