Business PME is a gate of free information bound for the companies in the United States of America. This website offers thousands of contents as well as a companies directory.
The group’s other BtoB websites
-- Professional Networking
Sunday March 21th 2010
Searcharticles Search
companies
- Strategy
- Marketing
- Advertising
- Trade
- Human Ress.
- Law & Rights
- Economics
- Finance
- Production
- Technologies
Free software licenses | ||
According to Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, software licenses must have the following four freedoms to qualify as being "Free": * Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose. * Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program. * Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor. * Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Freedoms 1 and 3 require source code access, because studying and modifying software without its source code is extremely difficult, highly inefficient, and sometimes impossible in practice. Access to annotated source code relieves these problems. Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative both publish lists of licenses that they find to comply with their definition of free software and open-source software respectively.[2] The lists are necessarily incomplete, because a license need not be known by either organization in order to provide these freedoms. Apart from these two organizations, the Debian project is seen by some to provide useful advice on whether particular licenses comply with their Debian Free Software Guidelines. Debian doesn't publish a list of approved licenses, so its judgments have to be tracked by checking what software they have allowed into their archives. However, it is rare that a license is announced as being in-compliance by FSF or OSI and not the other (the Netscape Public License used for early versions of Mozilla being an exception), so exact definitions of the terms have not become hot issues. The terms Libre software, FLOSS, FOSS, and OSS/FS do not have formal meanings or de facto arbitrators. Most free software uses a small set of licenses. The most popular of these are the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License, the BSD License, the Mozilla Public License, the MIT License, and the Apache License. Software that is not free software is known as proprietary software. It may come with some or none of the above freedoms, and almost always comes with an EULA which purports to use contract law to restrict users' ability to run the software in certain ways. The FSF and OSI definitions both disregard price. CDs containing free software such as GNU/Linux distributions are commonly for sale. If the CD buyer retains the free software freedoms the purchased software is still free software. Freeware that includes restrictions conflicting with the free software definition are considered proprietary, since source code may be unavailable, or redistributors may be prohibited from charging fees. Some people use "libre" to avoid the ambiguity of the word "free". However, these terms are mostly used within the free software movement. Variations on free software as defined by the FSF* Copyleft licenses, the GNU General Public License being the most prominent. The author retains copyright and permits redistribution and modification under terms to ensure that all modified versions remain free. * Public domain software - the author has abandoned the copyright. Since public-domain software lacks copyright protection, it may be freely incorporated into any work, whether proprietary or free. * BSD-style licenses, so called because they are applied to much of the software distributed with the BSD operating systems. The author retains copyright protection solely to disclaim warranty and require proper attribution of modified works, but permits redistribution and modification in any work, even proprietary ones. A copyright owner of copyleft-licensed software can produce and sell a version under any license, in addition to distributing the original version as free software. Many free software companies do this; this does not restrict any rights granted to the users of the copyleft version. All free software licenses must grant people all the freedoms discussed above. However, unless the applications' licenses are compatible, combining programs by mixing source code or directly linking binaries is problematic, because of license technicalities. Programs indirectly connected together may avoid this problem. Copyright 2008 - France BtoB from Wikipédia
|
• Identity management
• Enterprise resource planning • Social Engineering Techniques/Terms • History of software engineering (1990s â&hellip • Utility computing • Computer security • ADSL in Germany | |
