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: 2002-10-19 08:34:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Conflicting statements about GPS? Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 15:34:49 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1035041689 20164 129.241.83.78 (19 Oct 2002 15:34:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 15:34:49 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29949 Date: 2002-10-19T15:34:49+00:00 List-Id: 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.