[not entirely OT] proper terms for grades of freedom

[Nadav Har'El]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "[not entirely OT] proper terms for grades of freedom":
> According to FSF (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), there
> are "4 freedoms":

I am guessing that Stallman *wanted* there to be four freedoms, as a reference
to the Roosevelt's four freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms)
who (at least used to) be much more well known. So if he had 3 freedoms, or 5,
he had to merge or split them to get exactly 4 :-)

> * 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.

You asked about freedom 1, but I personally have more of an issue with
the way freedom 2 and 3 are phrased. If you have the source code to modify
(freedom 1) and can legally distribute copies of the original source
(freedom 2), what prevents you from legally distributing modified copies?
At worst, you can always distribute the original code (freedom 2) along
with patches that do your modifications (freedom 1).

> 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.

Because in reality, if you have access to the source code, you *can*
change it. Even if the license somehow tries to force you not to, there
is no way that the seller can enforce it on software running in-house.
So if you let people see the source code, might as well just let them change
it - there's no point in pretending they can't.

This is is *exactly* the reason why copy-protected software does *not*
come with source code - they know that if you had the source code, you
could easily remove the copy protection, even if you promise not to.

> 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.]

I'd call it hannukah-candle software - you can look at it, but you cannot
use it ;-)

But seriously, the closest thing that comes to my mind was the original Unix
license. Unix came with its source code, which you were free to study, but
you were *not* allowed to redistribute. But I don't think they pretended they
can prevent you from making changes to the source code you have.
And indeed, many did make such changes, with BSD being the most notable
example. But BSD were not allowed to distribute their Unix-based code -
rather, someone would have to buy Unix from AT&T first, and only then he
could have the BSD patches which he could apply himself.

> Are there licenses that allow private modifications but not
> distribution of either original or modified program?

Yes, and the Unix license (above) is the best example I can think of.

At the time, it was called a "source license", if I remember correctly.


-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Jun 10 2010, 28 Sivan 5770
nyh at math.technion.ac.il             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |War doesn't determine who's right but
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |who's left.