1 Nov
2016
1 Nov
'16
4:54 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:27:45 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
Il 01/11/2016 14:54, jonetsu ha scritto:
Hi Jonetsu,
in most cases you have to pay to use proprietary software. I'm pretty
sure that this could be considered a limit ;-)
Well, well... It is part of the terms of agreement to use the
software :) I do not consider it a limit as it is part of using it.
For instance using Open Source in a hardware product can be a limit. It
does not de facto equate limitless. If the proprietary application of
the hardware product uses (links against) a library with a certain Open
Source license, then it is an obligation to make available the source
code, which is not something one wishes to do an a competitive market.
Not to mention customers who might actually go through the code and
'reveal things' that will affect business. This example is outside of
the Linux music/audio domain, though.
Can you
use proprietary software without any limits? Can you study
the
> source code of a proprietary software? Can you modify the
> proprietary software? Can you redistribute proprietary software?
1) Yes.
My questions come from the free software definition
published by the
Free Software Foundation in 1986 and if, after 30 years the definition
is still there, I think that we can say that free software and
proprietary software are different.
Yes indeed. Regarding this, there is a difference. Although it is not
about what was brought up so far in this thread. It is not possible te
redistribute commercial software because of the nature of that software
itself. It is more about how to earn a living from the hours and
hours one spent designing and implementing software, so that one's
family can have a house, food, and possible some kind of money stored
somewhere to provide for other things later.
This is not the goal of Open Source. I agree with community help and
all that. This is also important. And thus I agree with the Open
Source principles, but the reason of existence in the rest of the world
has to be ones that stand the test of co-existence. This co-existence
itself will be beneficial for Open Source and ultimately, the sharing
principles behind it.
In other words, if we take the second point:
"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour
(freedom 2)."
Yes, but the neighbour has a lock on his door and we do not consider
this as a breach of freedom.
--
NP: "La diversità di avere un'anima" - Deus ex Machina - live in Paris,
2008