Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Karel Miklav <karel@inetis.spppambait.com>]

If GPS is kind-a free, i'd really love to hear where can I download it 
from, or if there is a friend who'd like to share...

Regards, Karel



Preben Randhol wrote:
> John Stoneham wrote:
> 
>>
>>From www.fsf.org and the definition of Free Software:
>>
>>"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
>>study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
>>kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
>>
>>    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>>    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
>>(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 improve the program, and release your improvements to
>>the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the
>>source code is a precondition for this.
>>A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms."
>>
>>So, in order for GPS to be considered "Free Software", any user of GPS
>>should be able to make copies available for others (freedom 2), or make
>>improvements to the source code and redistribute that (freedom 3). If the
>>copies given to Gnat Pro users are restricted from free distribution to
>>others, then it is not "Free Software".
> 
> 
> Who says it is restricted?
> 
> 
>>Note that there is nothing in the definition of "Free Software" that
>>prevents ACT from charging for it. They just can't restrict its distribution
>>to only paying customers and still call it "Free Software". Probably the
> 
> 
> Of course they can. However they cannot restrict their customers from
> distributing the software, as I understand it.
> 
> 
>>best example of this senario is Red Hat. They charge for their Linux OS and
>>service, but it's freely available for download to anyone who wants it, even
>>the most bleeding edge versions. They don't hold back and release Red Hat
>>7.0 to the public while selling 9.0 and restricting it's distribution.
> 
> 
> Why not? Suse don't distribute ISO-images of their distribution.
> Neither are they required to do this.
> 
> 
>>I think it is perfectly acceptable for ACT to restrict GPS to paying
>>customers and release old versions to the public for free, but I don't think
>>it's acceptable for ACT to call GPS "Free Software" from the very beginning
>>if that is their plan. It is misleading and a distortion of the definition
>>of Free Software.
> 
> 
> But they are following the 4 freedoms you quoted so I don't see your
> point. I think you have the misconception that Free Software must be
> distributed to the public, this is not a requirement. I can make a
> program and only give it to friends and still call it Free Software. I
> cannot restrict my friends in what they want to do with the program as
> stated above, though. There is no requirements that I have to put it out to
> the public unless I want to. The freedoms are related to the users of
> the software not the developers.
> 
> Regards,
> Preben