[yavor at doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]
sam at liddicott.com
Tue Jun 27 16:45:44 UTC 2006
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Can you change the CPU microcode (I'm not familiar with new
> > CPU's)? If you can't, then there is little point in having it as
> > free software since you wouldn't be able to update your
> > microcode. Kinda like wanting the source code to your toaster,
> > but the software is on a ROM chip.
> This is actually an interesting point: even if I can't change it, I
> would really be interested in the source code of my toaster
> software. Modifying the software is only one aspect of Free
> Software. Being able to understand how it works is another one.
> All the four freedoms need to be usable for something to be useful.
> If you can't upload a new copy, then being able to modify it is
> pointless I think.
Then what did RMS use to write emacs and gcc?
Just because he now has free versions of his tools doesn't mean other
users yet have free versions of their tools; or tool-sets.
Must we have the Free ACCOUNTANTS Software Foundation, the Free
ELETRONIC ENGINEERS Software Foundation, the Free BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Software Foundation as well?
By the rules you prefer, RMS himself would have been excluded from GBN
in the early GNU days.
Are such extreme|tight rules now acceptable because the tools RMS uses
are now free?
More information about the Discussion