Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

["John Stoneham" <captnjameskirk@moc.oohay>]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnar2emk.2cj.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> John Stoneham wrote:
> > I am, surely like most on this ng who use gnat, eagerly awaiting the
> > any-week-now release of GPS. However, after combing through what I could
> > find as "official" statements about it (mainly from Robert Dewar), I
have
> > become concerned. One statement clearly emphasised that GPS was "Free
> > Software", which would benefit from the input of many users, and this
raised
> > my hopes. But the only statements regarding it's release that I could
find
> > referred to those using Gnat Pro, which is not free.
>
> It is Free but not gratis (no cost) as it is supported software. I'm
> only hoping that there will be a public release (gratis, not supported)
> later of GPS like they do with the Gnat compiler.
>
> > to paying customers. Nor do I think it proper to call it "Free
> > Software" if it is only intended to be offered for free after a major
> > upgrade to the paying customers, and the "free" part is the old
> > version made freely available after a year or more. But maybe that's
> > just me.
>
> Yes I think so. Read on the definition of Free Software at
http://www.fsf.org/
>
> Preben


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".

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
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.

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.

-- John