On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:59, Phoebus R. Dokos (� � . � ) wrote: (...) > The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
SMSQE - OK > 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. SMSQE OK > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom > 2). SMSQE OK (for source code)* > 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. SMSQE OK (for source code)* * and, of course, if it is incorporated into the official version! > 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. This is all true for the source code, with the exception that your aren't allowed to charge money for it. > 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 True for SMSQE >. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to > notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. ALSO true for SMSQ/E since, if you don't want your code included in the official version, you can do with it what you like, except distribute binaries and put it up on a web site. . > 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. Still true here. > 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. There is a restriction here for the binaries. > 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. You do have this access. > 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. Revoking the licence would only means that you revoke for the future - everything don euntil then would stand as is. (the rest also applies to SMSQE) Wolfgang
