On Jan 16, 2004, at 2:27 PM, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> Chris Gehlker said:
>> On Jan 16, 2004, at 1:39 AM, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Actually from what I know SuSE has control over Yast, which is thier
>>> "system manager" It is just a little less flexible than Hardrake in
>>> Mandrake. So they are keeping part of thir code hidden. Yes I
>>> understand
>>> that sounds like what MSFT has done, however, I feel that could
>>> change
>>> in future distros.
>>
>> There was a link posted to SUSE's YaST license and while it is neither
>> GPL nor OSI approved, it is far from closed. See for yourself:
>> <http://www.suse.de/en/private/support/licenses/yast.html>
>
> I haven't reviewed it in a while, but last time I had looked it was not
> Free Software. Meaning it violated one or more conditions of the
> definition[0].
>
> # 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 quick look states on the Free Software Foundation's licesning
> matrix[1]
> shows that it's still non-free software.
Actually buy that definition the GPL isn't free software either. Large
multinational corporations have taken GPL software, modified it
internally and mandated that their employees use it without giving them
any access to the source code or any redistribution rights. When this
was pointed out by some well respected observers of the software scene
like Tim O'Reilly, FSF responded with a bunch of flameage. FSF has not
hesitated to criticize other licenses that went a little farther in
promoting "freedom 1" and "freedom 2" as disrespectful of the privacy
rights of software authors.
The problem is there is *always* a conflict between the four points
that you quoted above and the privacy rights of software authors. A
balance needs to be struck and who is to say that the SUSE license
doesn't come closer than the GPL?
> <snip>
> This is not a free software license. The license prohibits distribution
> for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software to be
> included in
> the many CD-ROM free software collections that are sold by companies
> and
> by organizations such as the FSF.
>
> There may be another problem in section 2a, but a word seems to be
> missing
> there, so it is hard to be sure what meaning is really intended.
> </snip>
>
> I hope you can understand why developers of Free Software find this
> irrating. They want to be able to take our hard work and bundle it
> with
> their work and distribute it for money. However, they do not want us
> to
> be able to bundle their work with our work and distribute it for money?
As developer of GPL software, I refuse to call if 'Free Software' for
reasons that that I hope to make plain, I can assure you that the GPL
does not prevent your software from being hijacked for commercial gain.
If that's what you want, I strongly recommend the RPL.
>
> To be clear this is a very one way street. If I can't get you to
> understand why this seems like an unfair proposition, then I have no
> hopes
> of getting you to admit there is a problem with their license. :)
>
> Furthermore, your presumption that you get the code makes it good is
> the
> exact reason why calling something Open Source is misleading. As a
> government employee I can obtain Microsoft source code. However, just
> because I can get the source, doesn't make it a good agreement. In the
> same way just because a company gives you source code doesn't mean they
> give you freedom. More rights perhaps than companies that don't give
> you
> source code, but certainly not true freedom.
>
> This is why it is important to talk in terms of freedom and not access
> to
> source code.
Please don't take this as a personal attack, Derek, but I find
discussing differences in software licenses in terms of 'freedom' to be
incredibly slimy. It's like when real estate salesmen always say 'home'
when talking about houses. This is a world where people are still
imprisoned, beaten and killed for their religious and political
beliefs. Those people are being denied Freedom. To try to make some
compare their situation to that of someone who is presented with a
less than optimally open software license is cynical and manipulative.
(text/plain)