On 6/10/10, Nadav Har'El <n...@math.technion.ac.il> wrote: > I am guessing that Stallman *wanted* there to be four freedoms, as a > reference > to the Roosevelt's four freedoms > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms)
Hmm, interesting... > You asked about freedom 1, but I personally have more of an issue with > the way freedom 2 and 3 are phrased. If you have the source code to modify > (freedom 1) and can legally distribute copies of the original source > (freedom 2), what prevents you from legally distributing modified copies? > At worst, you can always distribute the original code (freedom 2) along > with patches that do your modifications (freedom 1). There is a distinction. Look at Article 4 of the OSI "Open Source Definition" (http://opensource.org/docs/osd): the author of the original SW may want to preserve the integrity of his creation and has 2 types of provisions at his/her disposal for the purpose: a) optionally requiring to provide patches separately from the original source code (same bundle, but distinct, to be applied at build time) b) optionally requiring that software built from modified sources to carry a different name or version number from the unmodified version. > Because in reality, if you have access to the source code, you *can* > change it. Even if the license somehow tries to force you not to, there > is no way that the seller can enforce it on software running in-house. This is only true in cases where there is no way for the vendor to access the modified software. However, it is common to provide a software-based service without distributing the software. It used to be called server-side software, nowadays terms like "SaaS" abound, let alone "cloud", etc. Assume you run an application on your server (or server farm, or cloud) and use a library of mine. Users access the software using a thin or thick client. This is not distribution, so you may use, e.g., modified GPL software without any obligation to provide the sources to your modifications to your users or to anyone. Now, *I* did not allow you to modify my library (even though I gave you my code to study). It is, in general, feasible (e.g., by signing on as a user) for me to discover that you made modifications if such modifications manifest themselves in the behaviour. > I'd call it hannukah-candle software - you can look at it, but you cannot > use it ;-) Pardon my public display of political incorrectness, but the term I myself thought of was "lap-dance software" (I don't have much experience in the area but there does seem to be a rather general "look but do not touch" rule). BIG SMILEY GOES HERE before anyone gets offended! I actually rather like the term (the hint of indecency and of something to hide seems appropriate in the context of proprietary software), but I doubt it'll be adopted. ;-) -- 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
