Alex Nicolaou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sorry, I just can't help responding. But let's not turn this
> into a huge runaway thread - the mailing list is, after all, about
> Classpath, not about the JDK.
Well, if you're confused about what constitutes free software, it's
quite possible that others are as well -- so it's a relevant issue.
> Sun only requires compatibility for code which will be part of the
> distribution that Sun releases.
And these `compatibility' terms are non-free. The FSF will never
distribute your modifications in a non-free fashion; Sun will.
> Requiring these royalties doesn't make the software 'not free' in
> the FSF sense.
Requiring royalties *does* make the software non-free, using either
the Free Software Foundation's definition or the Debian/Open Source
Free Software Guidelines definition.
You might want to read ``Why Software Should Not Have Owners'' (off of
the FSF philosophy page) for the ethical background on why royalties
make a piece of software non-free.
Making a program free removes the `owner' from that piece of software.
When you obtain a piece of free software, regardless of how you obtain
it, you then have the right to modify it and share it with your
friends. That is, regardless of if the piece of software had an
`owner' before your obtained the software (either gratis or for a fee)
he has no control over your actions after your purchase.
The only exception to this rule is the addition of terms which gives
_all_ users the freedom to redistribute and change the software -- the
concept behind ``copyleft''.
Royalties restrict a user from sharing software with his friends. In
order to share a copy of the software, he must send money to the
original author. This situation is no different than if a piece of
software came with a restriction saying that for each distributed
copy, you had to clap five times. Any type of such restriction makes
the software proprietary.
Does this clarify matters?
