So it's possible for a license to be free and not in the FSF list.
Some are ambiguous or misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we disagree with, and we hope you disagree with it too. However, the GNU browser IceCat blocks advertisements that track the user as consequence of broader measures to prevent surveillance by web sites.
That is not what free software means. For instance, freedom 2 says that that user is free to make another copy and give or sell it to you. But no user is obligated to do that for you; you do not have a right to demand a copy of that program from any user.
In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy to anyone else, that program is free software albeit in a trivial way, because every user that has a copy has the four essential freedoms since the only such user is you.
In practice, when many users have copies of a program, someone is sure to post it on the internet, giving everyone access to it. We think people ought to do that, if the program is useful. But that isn't a requirement of free software.
There is one specific point in which a question of having access is directly pertinent to free software: This applies to the special case in which the user already has a copy of the program in non-source form.
Instead of with free software, the public has access to the program, we say, with free software, the users have the essential freedoms and with free software, the users have control of what the program does for them. In effect, it assumes that free software ought to coexist with software that does not respect users' freedom.
We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way to make software available for others to use. The other methods, nonfree software and Service as a Software Substitute subjugate their users.
It is used for a range of different activities whose only common characteristic is that they use the Internet for something beyond transmitting files. Thus, the term spreads confusion. When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic.
What scenario is the statement about? What is a good, clear term for that scenario?
Once the topic is clearly formulated, coherent thought about it becomes possible. In most scenarios, that is foolish because it exposes you to surveillance.
Another meaning which overlaps that but is not the same thing is Service as a Software Substitutewhich denies you control over your computing. You should never use SaaSS. Another meaning is renting a remote physical server, or virtual server.
These practices are ok under certain circumstances. Another meaning is accessing your own server from your own mobile device. That raises no particular ethical issues.Dear Twitpic Community - thank you for all the wonderful photos you have taken over the years.
We have now placed Twitpic in an archived state. Free software or libre software is computer software distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions.
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price: users—individually or in cooperation with computer programmers—are free to do what they want with their copies of a free software (including.
Needless to say, the patenting of software is not a widely loved policy, mostly embraced by large corporations like Lotus and Microsoft (Tysver “Software Patents”). Smaller companies and most often consumers are generally against it. Software Patents and Piracy in China Essay Words | 10 Pages.
Software Patents and Piracy in China Abstract Software patents raise a lot of issues during the development of IT industry. The problem with software patents is an instance of a more general one: the patent office takes a while to understand new technology.
If so, this problem will only get worse, because the rate of technological change seems to be increasing. G. K. Chesterton’s collection What’s Wrong With The World surprisingly does not open with “this is going to take more than one book.”.
In fact, he is quite to-the-point about exactly what he thinks the problem is: Now, to reiterate my title, this is what is wrong.