On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt 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.
>
> Accordi
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> Are there licenses that allow private modifications but not
> distribution of either original or modified program?
>
>
I know of at least one, though it was not part of a Well Known License,
rather than the license terms the guy invented
On 6/10/10, Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> 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 b
On 6/10/10, shimi wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>>
>> Are there licenses that allow private modifications but not
>> distribution of either original or modified program?
>>
> I know of at least one, though it was not part of a Well Known License,
> rather than t
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Binary distribution, even of unmodified code, was
not allowed.
This is not true. DJB did allow distribution of unmodified binaries, so
long as they were compiled with unmodified toolchains.
That may not fit the "Open Source Definition" then,
Nothing that fits
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 02:04:29PM +0300, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> 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.]
By giving up any of those fre
On 6/10/10, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>>
>>> Binary distribution, even of unmodified code, was
>>> not allowed.
>>
> This is not true. DJB did allow distribution of unmodified binaries, so
> long as they were compiled with unmodified toolchains.
This is a response to Shimi,
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 fo
On 6/10/10, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> 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)
Hmm, interesting...
> You asked about freedom 1, but I personally have more of an issue with
> the
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: [not entirely OT] proper
terms for grades of freedom":
> On 6/10/10, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> > I am guessing that Stallman *wanted* there to be four freedoms, as a
> > reference
> > to
On 6/10/10, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> Yes, I always find it amusing that when hearing about the "Four Freedoms",
> Linux geeks think first of Stallman ;-)
>
> In his January 1941 speech, almost a year before Pearl Harbor, FDR told
> congress that the time for non-interventionism is over. That Germany
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:17:07PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> 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 pe
On Thursday, 10 בJune 2010 21:26:20 Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Even if you have the source code, it does not mean you can build it.
Exactly.
Let's examine two categories mentioned in this thread:
1. "Read-only" software
2. "Only-In-House" modified software
The common name of both is -- "crapware".
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Oron Peled wrote:
- Or, you've read the file, but it's ARJ compressed and nobody
can read them any longer.
http://arj.sourceforge.net
Geoff.
___
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.a
On Friday, 11 בJune 2010 01:34:24 Geoff Shang wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Oron Peled wrote:
>
> > - Or, you've read the file, but it's ARJ compressed and nobody
> >can read them any longer.
>
> http://arj.sourceforge.net
It's even easier: yum install arj
However, here's a true st
Oron Peled writes:
> * Which, BTW, means all those NDA/Escrow plans are totally wothless.
Well, Oron, let's not get all carried away. You seem to be focused on
crapware that does not even compile and cannot be maintained, and in
those cases you are completely right. However, escrow plans exi
On Friday 11 Jun 2010 01:24:40 Oron Peled wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 בJune 2010 21:26:20 Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > Even if you have the source code, it does not mean you can build it.
>
> Exactly.
>
> 2. How about "modified-in-house" software?
>Initially, it looks different, but let me explain w
On Saturday, 12 בJune 2010 19:59:56 Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Friday 11 Jun 2010 01:24:40 Oron Peled wrote:
> Well, that's the ideal. In practice, deployed FOSS code (which can always be
> modified in-house, according to the free software definition), sometimes
> tends to divert from the mainline co
Oron Peled writes:
> Simplified explanation: When software teams are pressured by management
> to produce results at impossible deadlines, without taking maintenance
> into consideration (clients pays only for features, or fixing immediate
> critical bugs) -- than over sufficient time and project
On 6/10/10, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 02:04:29PM +0300, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
>> 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 cu
20 matches
Mail list logo
