See "Network Services Aren't Free or Nonfree; They Raise Other Issues": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html
"For programs, we make a distinction between free and nonfree (proprietary). More precisely, this distinction applies to a program that you have a copy of: either you [have the four freedoms for your copy][1] or you don't. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html An activity (such as a service) doesn't exist in the form of copies, so it's not possible to have a copy or to make copies. As a result, the four freedoms that define free software don't make sense for services." ------- In what concerns to patents turning its objects nonfree, I don't know if the law, let's say, automatically forbids everyone but the author to use them (its confusing to me to "find a pattern" here because of the lack of distinctions between software and other "patenteable" things); but, AFAIK, it is perfectly possible to patent something and give to people any permissions over it. (I've seen this, but I can't remember where.) I didn't read all of this yet: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-patents.html Em Dom, 2012-12-02 às 19:46 +0200, Alexey Eromenko escreveu: > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Gustavo C. M. <[email protected]> wrote: > > freedoms[1]: (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program > > in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to > > distribute modified versions." > > Under this definition Cloud software and patented codecs become > non-free, right ? >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
