On 15 Oct 2003, at 10:56, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντό wrote:
(...) > 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 That's the restriction, alright. (...) > 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). Well, you CAN give it away on a CD, it's just Web access that is restricted. > 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. Yes, I don't think that's the problem. (...) > 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). OK, let's forget the money part, then. > 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. Why? Define official. Is there an "official" linux? No, of course not. If you were to make enormous changes to the source code, distribute it with instrctuins to compile and and everybody used that, would the official bit make any difference? (....) > > Again I beg to differ. You HAVE to be able to distribute binaries. As you said, there we difer. > 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. Ah, I see where this is going now. Yes, I can understand that. So, you want a say of what goes into the sources or not. Seeing as many of us can't agree on what direction everything should take, getting a general agreement will not necessarily be easy - opr even feasible. > >> 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. > > Not really if you use binaries created by you, these are "unofficial" So what? (...) > > > > 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 Well, I would really take exception to the sources being sold. There is nothing to stop a reseller to sell a copy of the binaries, and distribute the sources along with it, for free. > > You do have this access. > > > 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. Again you can distribute the sources (though not through the Internet). I fail to see why that is so paramount. (...) > > Not all of it but anyway, I think I made my point too :-) Happy you did. Wolfgang ----------------- www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com
