Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Zergling_man (zergling_man@sacred.harpy.faith)'s status on Monday, 19-May-2025 00:31:26 JST Zergling_man
   A>Windows is like 99% proprietary
   B>How can you know? You don't even have the source code
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 19-May-2025 00:31:25 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Zergling_man Windows is 100% proprietary - you don't even have the source code, thus freedoms 1, 2 & 3 are being denied and the software usually contains antifeatures to deny freedom 0 too is what to say.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 19-May-2025 00:51:05 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Zergling_man >if someone takes free software, compiles it, and gives you the result without telling you where it comes from, is it proprietary?
     If they do not provide the source code in the same way when you ask, or they have included a written offer that they will follow through with, that is proprietary software - as if the user does not have the source code, they do not have freedoms 1, 2 & 3.
     
     For copyleft licenses like the GPLv2 & GPLv3 such act is copyright infringement.
     
     >If you then find where it comes from, compile it yourself and get hash match on the result, does it suddenly become free?
     Yes, if you manage to find the complete corresponding source code yourself and manage to extract or guess the configuration and compile that into a corresponding binary (you are very unlikely to arrive at an exact hash due to compiler version differences etc, when it comes to compiling the same binary from the same sources, but that doesn't matter, as either executable functions identically), you have freedom again, as you have the 4 freedoms again.
     
     But that is quite a stretch, as when people and businesses distribute GPLv2{+,-only} and/or GPLv3{+,-only} software, they typically apply a custom configuration or write their own build scripts and often make some patches, all of which you need to get a corresponding binary.
     
     Alas, some businesses like dumping the original sources without including the build scripts and claim they are GPLv2-compliant, even though they do not comply with any of the below 3 crucial requirements; "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the ****scripts**** used to control ****compilation**** and ****installation of the executable****. "
     
     Of course, when you check the incomplete sources more carefully, you find that certain libraries have GPLv3 components that are enabled by default.
   • Embed this notice
     Zergling_man (zergling_man@sacred.harpy.faith)'s status on Monday, 19-May-2025 00:51:06 JST Zergling_man

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki It's actually an interesting question; if someone takes free software, compiles it, and gives you the result without telling you where it comes from, is it proprietary? If you then find where it comes from, compile it yourself and get hash match on the result, does it suddenly become free?
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 19-May-2025 01:17:57 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Zergling_man >Can software be free, in and of itself?
     Only if it was written for freedom.
     
     >If two people use a computer, one who compiled and installed the software, and one who doesn't know about it,
     The only user of the software has freedom (as he compiled the free source code and installed it).
     
     The second person who doesn't know about it, isn't using the software and therefore their freedom is not being impacted.
     
     If the second person is using the software, they will soon realize it is free software via --help, --version, a warranty command or a license about box - and they'll find the free source code on that same computer and therefore they have freedom.
   • Embed this notice
     Zergling_man (zergling_man@sacred.harpy.faith)'s status on Monday, 19-May-2025 01:17:58 JST Zergling_man

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki You didn't actually answer the question. So putting it another way... Can software be free, in and of itself? If two people use a computer, one who compiled and installed the software, and one who doesn't know about it, then yes, of course, that second person does not have freedom when using the computer, but is the software proprietary in their hands, and free in the first person's hands?
     Granted, the question is rather irrelevant, because we don't care about the software being free, but the freedom of the people using it.