Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org>]

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
-- 
This is Ada95 land. On quiet nights you can hear C programmers debug.