From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,351835e570c46e8b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-21 00:06:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news-hub.siol.net!news.siol.net!not-for-mail From: Karel Miklav User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Conflicting statements about GPS? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:06:32 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.250.23.219 X-Complaints-To: abuse@siol.net X-Trace: news.siol.net 1035183992 213.250.23.219 (Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:06:32 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:06:32 MET DST Organization: Slovenija OnLine - SiOL Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29970 Date: 2002-10-21T09:06:32+02:00 List-Id: 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