| RMS: No plain sailing for Novell |
|
| by Sam Varghese | |
| Tuesday, 28 November 2006 | |
|
Page 1 of 2   
Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
While the terms free software and open source are often used as synonyms, there are fundamental differences - in order for software to meet the definition of "free", the FSF says it should provide four freedoms - freedom to run the program for any purpose; to study the source code and then change it if one wishes; helping one's neighbour and rights of distribution. Stallman said the FSF would have no hesitation in using GPLv3 to nobble the deal. "Definitely! This deal is a threat to the freedom of the free software community, because its effect is to make GPL-covered software non-free in practical terms," he said. There have already been concerns expressed that the deal violates section 7 of the existing GPL, version 2. The FSF's chief legal eagle, Eben Moglen, told CNET News earlier this month that if one made an agreement which required the payment of a royalty for the right to distribute GPL software, then it could not be distributed under the GPL. He said section 7 of the GPL made it obligatory for one to have, and also give everybody else, the right to freely distribute software without needing any additional permissions. GPLv3 will insist that if someone sells a software binary then, since he or she is also required to provide the source, along with that comes a requirement to provide whatever it takes to authorise a recompiled version to run.
|
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
