Re: [fsf-community-team] A first exercise

[Simon Bridge]

On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 07:49 -0500, Holmes Wilson wrote:
> Hey everyone,

> Have a look this article and propose a response to the list.
>  > article<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13880_3-10378605-68.html>


> One way to determine whether a program is really free is its use of
> the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License (GPL). The
> GNU GPL stipulates that the software can be used, copied, and
> distributed verbatim without limitation, though it cannot be changed.
> While you can usually get the source code of programs that adhere to
> the GNU GPL, the license differs somewhat from open-source software.
> 

There are 25 comments at time of writing - the article is two-part and
includes a section complaining about the bandwidth used in automatic
updates. This last bit gets most of the comment.

The free software comments are:

> Excellent job! However, I do think you should add something about
> those free softwares that sell your system usage stats to
> corporations...

> I ditched firefox and loaded chrome I was sick of the random freezes I
> think some kind of virus hijacked it but now that I totally abandoned
> it I have a working computer.

So it is probably not worth making a big deal over. Just an FYI to the
author...

The following passage in your blog "Finding the catch in 'free'
software" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13880_3-10378605-68.html has caused
some concern as it could lead many of your readers to misunderstand the
nature of free software and the GPL.

> 
> > One way to determine whether a program is really free is its use of
> > the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License (GPL). The
> > GNU GPL stipulates that the software can be used, copied, and
> > distributed verbatim without limitation, though it cannot be
> > changed. While you can usually get the source code of programs that
> > adhere to the GNU GPL, the license differs somewhat from open-source
> > software.


The Free Software Foundation supplies the following Free Software
Definition specifying the terms in which software may be considered free
software. You appear to have missed it:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

The definition explicitly requires freedom to modify a program (freedom
1) and the freedom to distribute modified copies (freedom 3). Nowhere is
there any mention of verbatim-only copying.

Access to the source code is listed as a precondition for these
freedoms.

The GNU GPL, as a free software license, follows these rules.

You have provided in your blog a correct link to the GPL text reproduced
below - thank you. You seem to have obtained the impression that the GPL
allows only verbatim copies. I'd like to refer you to section 4 which
explicitly allows "conveying modified copies".
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Indeed, there are currently high profile lawsuits over the issue of
access to the source code for modified copies of GPL licensed software.
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/12/sflc-launches-gpl-enforcement-smackdown-on-14-gadget-makers.ars

The GNU GPL is an Open Source license as defined by the Open Source
Initiative. In this respect there is no difference between GPL and Open
Source software. However, there is some Open Source Software which is
not Free Software. Mostly, however, the difference is one of emphasis.

Please see "Open Source Misses the Point"
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
... for more information.

Please feel free to contact me if any of this seems unclear.