On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:11:17 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14 Oct 2003 at 13:55, Bill Cable wrote:
(...)I knew the QL was very special the first time I switch it on and am pleased to
see it receive credit as a key motivator for the Open Source Movement.
:-)
Just to put a further cat amongt the pigeons (I'm in a provocative mood today), let me
ask whether SMSQ/E, as it stands now, really ISN'T "open source".
Let's define open source as being software which you can do anything with:
Compile it, change it, distribute it in source and complied form.
With SMSQ/E there are two restrictions:
1 - IF (and that is IF!!!!!!) you want your code in the official version, it has to be vetted
by me - or rather by the "registrar".
Is that SOOOOOOOOOO unreasonable?
2 - You may NOT distribute the compiled code (unless for testing purposes etc...).
BUT
1 - you can become a reseller
2 - the sources have everything needed but an Assembler to be readily compiled.
Wolfgang
The following abstract is I think necessary as a reference to what is really free software -At least that's the definition I adopt- (Full version at <http://www.fsf.org>):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
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. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.
In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now my note:
I would have no problem with a restricted version of these if that pertained only to the money part:
ie You have the right to give the software away for free but if you choose to sell it for yourself then you MUST pay a royalty to the original author.
Apart from that distinction I don't think that I, personally, can budge from any of these definitions.
--
Visit the QL-FAQ at: <http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/faq/> (Still uploading stuff!)
Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: <http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlx.html>
Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:<http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlxmac.html>
