On Mon, Dec 23, 2002, Ira Abramov wrote about "Re: questions for RMS": > > * Sometimes, in order to be able to finish modifying software for which > > you have the source code, you need to be able to prove that your > > modification has no unintended consequences. Therefore you need access > > to a regression test suite. > > In view of the above, should such a regression test suite be > > considered as "source code" (meaning form in which is the easiest to > > modify the software) as far as GPL is concerned? If not, why not? > > if they are released as part of the tarball of the product source, then > yes. if they are just tools for development, then their license has > nothing to do with the license of the code they help create. same as > using notepad.exe to write GPL code :)
I don't agree, and I think the original questioner's question was good, though it can be broadened a bit. Remember, the GPL isn't just about having the code for free - it's also about being able to modify it. And for some types of code, you may need extra things, not just the source code, in order to *modify* (not compile!) the source code. Another example besides the test suites comes to my mind from my recent involvement in writing a Hebrew spell checker (by the way, expect another release in two weeks!). In that project we could have released only the final word lists used in the spell checker - not the automated word-inflection programs that were used to generate them. This will still leave the user with a working, 100% "free software" spell-checker. But it will not really allow the user to modify the spell-checker to, for example, check "ktiv chaser", because that would require systematic changes to the word lists that are too late to do at that stage. It will also make it very hard for someone to add more words to the dictionary, basically making the original author a monopoly in improving the spellchecker. So sometimes it's not exactly clear what it means for something to be "free software". In the hspell project we considered several variations, and finally decided to go with the "free-est" variation we could think of, and release *all* files we used to make the word lists, even if the GPL doesn't strictly require that. > open standards but open source (which is already a problem) and suggests > it should be forced, which is against what the freedom of choice is all > about, in the base of the Free/Open philosophy. I'd say he'll agree with I'm not sure I agree with you here either. Freedom of choice is nice, but for individuals, *NOT* for government clerks. These should have no choice but to best serve the country. They should not be able to make choices that are bad for the country, just because they are the easiest choices for them personally, or they get kickback from making these choices. So "forcing" open source (or more accurately, "standards that have an open source implementation", which is NOT the same as "open standards", mind you) on the government might not be as absurd as it first seems. > me it's a bad idea and should be revised. Nehama Ronen is obviously > riding a wave she knows nothing about to get PR, but it's done in a very > unprofessional and misguided way. the bottom line is that she can be > ignored or corrected, but not encouraged with the current suggestion. How can she get PR from such a geeky issue? Besides the 200 geeks in this list and perhaps 500 other readers of ynet's computer section, not many people heard this PR. She could have gotten more PR from saying something about the unity of Jerusalem, settlements, or who knows what. Maybe, just maybe, she really cares about this issue? I don't know. > see above. have a Hebrew GUI and easy install (Linbrew?) with a working > Office (OO?) and push Matakh to port to it. once you have the big I hope Matakh stays the hell out of it. Matakh are the same people who developed the Rav-Millim spellchecker using your and my tax-shekels, and now are making money out of it (see rav-milim.co.il). Needless to say they didn't think of making it free software, thereby saving me many sleepless nights in the last couple of months :( > > * How do you feel about IBM Israel selling its R30 laptops only with Lucent > > AMR > > modems, that according to linmodems.org "are definitely not supported"? > > they are free to sell it, you are free not to buy it. And RMS is free not to come lecture at IBM. And yet he did. So maybe this kind of question is relevant after all (although I agree it sounds a bit too specific). > there is a more interesting question here - since IBM is doing those > things, how comfortable are you feeling that they are inviting you to > speak in their favor in this conferrence day? would you take the > opportunity to give a piece of your mind to your hosts on their double > standard towards Open Source? Right. > ok, now what happens if the "entity" that developped the proprietary > extension is a department in my company, and I get the source. am I > allowed too re-release this? does my boss have legal power to forbid me > from releasing it? Yes you are allowed, and No, he doesn't. I think that's pretty clear... Obviously, your boss can still fire your ass and pull you through years of legal battles, so you may be right but not wise. -- Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Dec 24 2002, 19 Tevet 5763 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |----------------------------------------- Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Corduroy pillows - they're making http://nadav.harel.org.il |headlines! ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
