[not entirely OT] proper terms for grades of freedom

[Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt <pub at goldshmidt.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We all know what "free/open-source/libre software" means and we are
> generally capable of distinguishing between "open source" and "free"
> and so on, and figuring out if a given license is "free" and to what
> degree.
>
> According to FSF (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), there
> are "4 freedoms":
>
> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>
> * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it
> do what you wish (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 distribute copies of your modified versions to others
> (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance
> to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a
> precondition for this.
>
> I was just asked a question (by a friend who is very knowlegeable
> about free software himself) that made me stop and think. I'll
> paraphrase his original question - it was short and to the point and
> it did not refer to the FSF "4 freedoms".
>
> The 2nd freedom ("Freedom 1") is compound and not atomic. "Study how
> the program works" (e.g., from sources) and "change" are two different
> things. I find this very curious, it seems natural to me to separate
> passive and active access, but they are bundled together.
>
> Is there an "official" term for software that comes with source code
> but does not allow one to modify or distribute it (modified or not)?
> [This was the original question that fueled my curiosity.]
>
> Are there licenses that provide the code but do not allow (even
> private) modifications?
>
>
I was once offered something similar. The source code was to be given, as
insurance in case the company stopped existing. However, we were not to
access the code unless such a thing happened.


> Are there licenses that allow private modifications but not
> distribution of either original or modified program?
>
>
Of course - this is where you sign an NDA to get the code.


> My search did not yield much. The "Open Source Definition", the
> "Debian Free Software Guidelines", the "Free Software Definition" all
> require redistribution. As far as I understand, "public domain" does
> not require opening the source. I looked at many license comparison
> lists and there is always redistribution, modification, etc.
>
> The only example I found was Microsoft's "Reference Source License",
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/referencesourcelicensing.mspx
> .
> Does anyone know if "Reference Source License" is a generic term or
> just a specific license from M$?
>
> I did not find any license that allows private modifications but
> forbids redistribution. It is quite possible I missed something.
>
> --
> Oleg Goldshmidt | oleg at goldshmidt.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-il mailing list
> Linux-il at cs.huji.ac.il
> http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
>



-- 
Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda.
http://ladypine.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/pipermail/linux-il/attachments/20100610/40b6c55f/attachment-0001.html>