1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
5 |
>>> If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the |
6 |
>>> package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to express this. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> I'm aware that we can't distinguish the two cases. Should we have a |
9 |
>> "binary-only" license to catch it? |
10 |
|
11 |
> The license isn't binary-only. The license is BSD. It just happens |
12 |
> that the thing they're licensing is the binary and not the source. |
13 |
|
14 |
Coming back to this. I agree that the license is BSD. |
15 |
|
16 |
> Does it really matter? Before we start overloading the LICENSE flag |
17 |
> to represent something other than the license we should probably |
18 |
> have a problem to actually fix. |
19 |
|
20 |
There is a real problem, namely that we use it for filtering with |
21 |
ACCEPT_LICENSE, and for BSD we currently cannot distinguish between |
22 |
free (i.e. source is available) and non-free software. |
23 |
|
24 |
> As far as freedom of code goes, arguably the code is perfectly free |
25 |
> - it just isn't open source. You could legally decompile, modify, |
26 |
> recompile, and redistribute it and your assembly language sources as |
27 |
> much as you like. |
28 |
|
29 |
The code is only free as in beer. But it is neither Free Software nor |
30 |
Open Source. |
31 |
|
32 |
The Free Software Definition [1] is very clear about this point: |
33 |
|
34 |
A program is free software if the program's users have the four |
35 |
essential freedoms: |
36 |
[...] |
37 |
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it |
38 |
does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source |
39 |
code is a precondition for this. |
40 |
[...] |
41 |
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to |
42 |
others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole |
43 |
community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the |
44 |
source code is a precondition for this. |
45 |
|
46 |
[...] |
47 |
|
48 |
In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the |
49 |
freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must |
50 |
have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, |
51 |
accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free |
52 |
software. |
53 |
|
54 |
So is The Open Source Definition [2]: |
55 |
|
56 |
2. Source Code |
57 |
|
58 |
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution |
59 |
in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a |
60 |
product is not distributed with source code, there must be a |
61 |
well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than |
62 |
a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the |
63 |
Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form |
64 |
in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately |
65 |
obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as |
66 |
the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. |
67 |
|
68 |
We could easily solve this by adding a "binary-only" or |
69 |
"no-source-code" tag to such packages. It would be included in the |
70 |
@BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, but not in @FREE. So such |
71 |
packages would be excluded for users with ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE". |
72 |
|
73 |
Thinking about the name, "no-source-code" might be a better choice |
74 |
than "binary-only". As the GPL defines it, "The source code for a work |
75 |
means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." |
76 |
This may be binary, e.g. for pictures in a bitmap format. |
77 |
|
78 |
Ulrich |
79 |
|
80 |
|
81 |
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html |
82 |
[2] http://opensource.org/osd |