-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/12/2014 10:48 PM, paul g wrote: > Thank you for the explanation. > > So all this 'open source code' is off limits to being modified? > Unless it's under a GNU license? The license software is released under is the license it is released under. Most of the concerns RMS has about re-usability are secured under licenses that meet the criteria of being "Open Source." Indeed, it's very hard to see what his problem is beyond the failure of the community to rally around his word choice. For a license to be "open source" under the standards of the open source consortium, the licensee must be free to view the source code, modify the source code, redistribute the source code or binaries, and so forth. Indeed, it is easily arguable that the FSF GLP licenses are less "free" in terms of "freedom" than the Open Source Consortium standards because they are highly restrictive with regards to what a user can do in terms of using the code in ways that do not carry that freedom forward whereas an Open Source license can allow a user to "close" a fork of a product and make it proprietary if they choose to do so. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTITa4AAoJELWzpBXk2k3wtzQH+weWDM7MkwnB9346sotRno1N JuaQkw5jG8DdE2dsFOZu1u6dj+f85Dzv7GuzaGE5gMQbSZAIeG9y1Vc1PycNGbg9 x7XIH3AxUZ2ZeoEVzi6gnfcegK7OZNpN4Im1uh8Zo5P0Cut5a9LUNHSqwc8aN4kn tncDHh9e4H4sFTAduDxjZWjBUgKraprcUwM981Hz3YJ4OCr6+PaaeznAX0hcpRRD h3O6DA12mWaadgoFS6+fyPgQtiKjDskYD2DIwS2bauw2LEj2/mL+1soDqQSJrvur BWjiKDQg3oWyY3ZbpcQTLRwoFmU0VBgo7ozdD9O6fG7Gwz9P0GYq+1Mcc8d6jzc= =F1Ee -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----