Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html:
>
> Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four
> freedoms that every user should have:
> the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
> the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
> the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
> the freedom to share the changes you make.
> When a program offers users all of these freedoms, we call it free
> software.

Note that they specifically left out the freedom to make changes and NOT
share the source.  Once again, they are trying to allocate common words to
their agenda.  "Free software" means exactly that.  If it's truly free then
you don't need to explicitly list the freedoms you have.  I agree that my
USBProg source is not free, but neither is GPL source.  However, much of my
Pascal host code has no restriction at all, and is "free source".

> On the other hand, from FSF's point of view, the agenda is
> more important than the above "freedom". And imposing
> limit of the modification and redistribution does help on
> its agenda. On this perspective, it is more suitable for FSF.

I see what they're doing and why, and agree they have every right to impose
whatever restriction they want on software they own.  What bugs me about the
FSF is that they are trying to appropriate common english words to their
narrow and self-serving meaning, and they tend to claim some sort of moral
superiority.  They've got a agenda, just like everyone else.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist