On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:58:19 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:59, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á . ç ) wrote: (...)The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
SMSQE - OK
SMSQE OKThe 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 (freedomSMSQE OK (for source code)*
2).
Well that's restriction 1... As seen below you have to be able to distribute legitimate copies both in binary and in source form so... it's not OK
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.
* and, of course, if it is incorporated into the official version!
To your (*) that alone breaks the premise of Free Software. Plus that you really do not have FREE access to the source code (Free as in Freedom) as the Source code is only available by the registrar. Although it is free (as in beer to get) that's not the point. There should be the possibility of multiple points of access to the code (ie me putting up a website where everyone that wants it can download it).
To that I have to add that I have no problem paying for media and shipping charges when I get the source code in a CD, from you or anyone else.
This is all true for the source code, with the exception that your aren't allowed to chargeA 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.
money for it.
As I said I have no problem with the money part. Indeed I find it better than charging money (although it might help to charge copying fees maybe that could even be sent to TT).
However you are not *REALLY* allowed to distribute copies as a further distribution even unmodified turns the software into "unofficial!" (It's in the license). A copy made by a third party (accepting the money precondition as it stands now) should be official in itself.
True for SMSQEYou should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist
Agreed
. 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.
Again I beg to differ. You HAVE to be able to distribute binaries. Plus if you want your changes to be part of the sources we HAVE to notify one person only. A decision is not made collectively which defeats the purpose. It's fundamentaly different (and this is in no way a critisicm on your objectivity personally, just a fact) when one person is in charge than a set of persons operating in a democratic environment. I prefer the latter as it fits my personal set of beliefs.
Still true here.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.
Not really if you use binaries created by you, these are "unofficial"
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.
Exactly right and it's a big obstacle to the free software idea. Moreover from the wording above that means also that when sold SMSQ/E should also include the sources if the user wants them
Not really. Free access in the internet age, means that the software can be accessed by anyone at any time (ie on a server) via CVS or otherwise. Even if you do not choose to do so, somebody else that has the sources should be allowed to give the sources without them being deemed "unofficial". It's logical to have a central point of access to maintain uniformity, but acceptance of this should be voluntary by the users (I don't know of anyone that wouldn't agree to this as long as they HAVE the option) and not compulsory. Now users don't have that option. It's a matter of perspective first and foremost. Everyone would prefer to get their sources from the "official" point if they were given the choice, but this HAS to be a choice.In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improvedYou do have this access.
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.
Revoking the licence would only means that you revoke for the future - everything don
euntil then would stand as is.
Agreed.
(the rest also applies to SMSQE) Wolfgang
Not all of it but anyway, I think I made my point too :-)
Phoebus
--
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>
