On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:29:55 +0530, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com said:
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, because i allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) just because i allow you to do anything with it for your own use.
In the context of free software, you can only call it free if it has the four cardinal freedoms as defined by the page titled the free software definition: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
You are trying to restrict the fundamental freedoms 2 and 3; which makes it non-free software.
Even wikipedia seems to be with me on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license says: "Free software is software which grants recipients the freedom to modify and redistribute the software.
So, non-redistribution does not cut mustard.
Oh, and the DFSG pretty much asks for re-distributability, which means so does the open soirce initiatives definition of free software.
You are talking about free software, a term that has pretty well established semantics associated with it. While you might be free to make up your own meanings for words, doing so is not really conducive to meaningful communication.
manoj