Quoting Steve Litt ([email protected]): > I don't think the definitions of free software and open source > anticipated a form of obfuscation so powerful that a simple computer > program couldn't de-obfuscate it.
Don't advance this argument that X isn't free software because its source code is too difficult for a third-party fork to adopt and maintain in practice unless you're also prepared to consider it for other obvious candidates such as OpenOffice.org, X.org, etc. (Your acknowledgement that the X protocol suite is multifaceted and increases the problem domain greatly is noted, but isn't actually relevant to the question you asked.) Besides, I note that one guy maintained uselessd quite well for a while, and could have kept doing so but walked away when he felt the point had been made. > One could also bring up the fact that a determined group of programmers > could tame/refactor systemd. Well yeah, but would they go through all > that work just to end up with something much less useful than the s6 > init system? Likewise not relevant to the question you asked. > GPL3 recently broadened the definition of (its take on) free software > by declaring software patents to be nonfree unless given to the > community (do I have that right?). Actually, patent encumbrances have _always_ been seen as relevant to whether a codebase is legitimately free software / open source. E.g., even if a codebase is under an OSI Certified open source licence, if local patent conditions prevent exercise of rights enumerated in the OSD (and deemed to capture the spirit of what is meant by 'open source'), then the software isn't open source. It can't be, if the patent baron's encumbrances prevent it from being that. Likwise, if a code module is under an OSI Certified licence but physically cannot be made to work without actions that add proprietary encumbrances on its use, then that isn't open source, either. Likewise, if coder George Tirebiter declares that his binary-compiled program is hereby licensed under 2-clause New-BSD License but never bothers to provide the source code, then it isn't open source no matter what he says. All of these matter come up occasionally on OSI's license-discuss mailing list, and what I'm saying (above) is its clear consensus. FWIW, back in 1999, I explained the core characteristic of open source / free software to my firm's sales staff: It's the legal right (combined with practical practical ability) to fork. See: 'Fear of Forking' on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/ . And, the codebase you spoke of does meet that test: We know this because it's already happened once. -- Cheers, « Le doute n'est pas une état bien agréable, mais Rick Moen l'assurance est un état ridicule. » ("Doubt is not [email protected] a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.') McQ! (4x80) -- Voltaire _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
