i recently stumbled upon a piece of software [1] a wikipedia article [2] tells the following about:
The actual code of Core Force is not publicly available; however, due to its Apache license 2.0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_license, the software is completely free for commercial or noncommercial use and can be freely reverse engineered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering, disassembled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disassembly or decompiled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompiler.
(core force is described as "free software" throughout the article)
as far as i know (or read [3]), the apache license is a non-viral free software license, which allows using code in a proprietary application.
now it seems the core force team has done so (it is based on another piece of free software) and decided to stick to the apache license. as i understand the license, it does not require the author (core force) to release the source code, it just gives permission to users to re-distribute it ("in Source or Object form"), although the source is not provided by the author, so the users would be allowed to re-distribute the source /if they received it/.
all together, it seems to me that corelabs are not strictly violating the license, they are just using it unusually, but if this was possible, the usual assumption "it is released under a Free license, so it has to be Free software" would not hold.
what am i wrong about?
chrysn
ps: i have not modified the wp article yet as of awaiting the outcome of this thread, but describing core force as Free software is definitely wrong (contradicting the preconditions of freedom #1)
[1] http://force.coresecurity.com/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_force#License [3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ#WhatDoesItMEAN
On 28-Aug-2007, chrysn wrote:
i recently stumbled upon a piece of software [1] a wikipedia article [2] tells the following about:
The actual code of Core Force is not publicly available;
To qualify as free software, it doesn't need to be "publicly available"; it *does* need to be available with the full exercise of the four freedoms in the Free Software Definition to every recipient of the software.
So, the page needs to clarify whether the "actual source code" is available for unrestricted use, modification, and redistribution for every recipient.
now it seems the core force team has done so (it is based on another piece of free software) and decided to stick to the apache license. as i understand the license, it does not require the author (core force) to release the source code, it just gives permission to users to re-distribute it ("in Source or Object form"), although the source is not provided by the author, so the users would be allowed to re-distribute the source /if they received it/.
So long as the source is the source code *to the object form they received", and so long as any recipient can be reasonably sure of getting that corresponding source form.
all together, it seems to me that corelabs are not strictly violating the license, they are just using it unusually, but if this was possible, the usual assumption "it is released under a Free license, so it has to be Free software" would not hold.
That's never been the case. A free license is a necessary, but not always sufficient, precondition for the work to be free software.
Instead, a work is free software if its recipients have full exercise of the four freedoms. This is *usually* a function of what license the work is released with; but it's not *defined* by the license, it's defined by the freedom of the recipient with regard to the work.
To qualify as free software, it doesn't need to be "publicly available"; it *does* need to be available with the full exercise of the four freedoms in the Free Software Definition to every recipient of the software.
So, the page needs to clarify whether the "actual source code" is available for unrestricted use, modification, and redistribution for every recipient.
core force can be downloaded gratis from their website, but only in the form of an installer. i tried to install it using wine in order to see if maybe the source is included in the installer (there is no link to the source in the download area [1]), but it requires msie5+ which is not provided by wine, so i'll try as soon as i have a virtual windows available.
[1] http://force.coresecurity.com/index.php?module=base&page=download
That's never been the case. A free license is a necessary, but not always sufficient, precondition for the work to be free software.
so the conclusion is that everything is basically in accordance with the licenses (as it is hard to violate the apache license), and core force could be described as "freeware under a pointless free license"? (for lacking source availability to users, it is definitely not free software, that is obvious)
Hi Chrysn,
Ben's explanation is accurate, and from looking at their website it seems that they never distribute source code, so people who use this software do not have the necessary freedoms for it to be free software.
Also, for anyone interested in contributing to Wikipedia's coverage of free software topics there is WikiProject_Free_Software which has todo lists where you can find or add tasks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPFS
And the free software portal presents the existing content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Free_software
Chrysn chrysn@fsfe.org writes:
as far as i know (or read [3]), the apache license is a non-viral free software license
A small point: All free software licences are non-viral. Software will never turn into GPL'd software just by touching software that is under the GPL. The GPL is a copyleft or "reciprocal" licence.
all right -- i changed the article not to erroneously mention free software.
as of natively speeking german, i'll rather stick to enhancing the german free software portal [1] (which, by the way, looks better than the english one to me, first of all by listing the four freedoms as the core of free software prominently on the top of the page)
[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Freie_Software
A small point: All free software licences are non-viral. Software will never turn into GPL'd software just by touching software that is under the GPL. The GPL is a copyleft or "reciprocal" licence.
i kind of expected such a rebuke, but as of starting to grow a microbiology background, i like the term and think it is quite descriptive (and not every viral infection is transmitted by touching, but when incorporating infected flesh into your body, you are likely to be infected as well). don't worry, i chose my words in a more politically correct in communication with "uninitiated" ;-)
Hi,
chrysn schrieb:
A small point: All free software licences are non-viral. Software will never turn into GPL'd software just by touching software that is under the GPL. The GPL is a copyleft or "reciprocal" licence.
i kind of expected such a rebuke, but as of starting to grow a microbiology background, i like the term and think it is quite descriptive (and not every viral infection is transmitted by touching, but when incorporating infected flesh into your body, you are likely to be infected as well).
Well, "viral" is another expression for "spreading illness". This term only fits proprietary licenses which really infect the whole system built upon, making it non-free. The GPL (and other copleft licenses) can be described much better as "immunizing" against the illness of proprietary licenses. These terms were found by Bernhard Reiter, as far as I know.
Best wishes Michael
Michael Kesper wrote:
Well, "viral" is another expression for "spreading illness". This term only fits proprietary licenses which really infect the whole system built upon, making it non-free.
slightly tongue in cheek: There are also bacteriophage viruses which eat up unpleasant bacteria, and were widely used in treatment by the old USSR. 'Red virus eats proprietary infections'.
Graham
Hi,
graham schrieb:
Michael Kesper wrote:
Well, "viral" is another expression for "spreading illness". This term only fits proprietary licenses which really infect the whole system built upon, making it non-free.
slightly tongue in cheek: There are also bacteriophage viruses which eat up unpleasant bacteria, and were widely used in treatment by the old USSR. 'Red virus eats proprietary infections'.
This may be true, but it's not the predominant connotation of viruses. :)
Best wishes Michael
Michael wrote:
Well, "viral" is another expression for "spreading illness". This term only fits proprietary licenses which really infect the whole system built upon, making it non-free. The GPL (and other copleft licenses) can be described much better as "immunizing" against the illness of proprietary licenses. These terms were found by Bernhard Reiter, as far as I know.
from a programmers point of view, i'd call that inedible rather than viral :-)
i think we as the free software community could prove a good sense of humor by not completely smashing down the term with viruses like the one graham mentioned in mind or with respect to the importance of viruses to microbiology.
of course, all with a due sense of audience; talking to proprietary software people accusing (!) the gpl of being viral, i will probably find myself using other words to describe the benefits of copyleft licensing.
(sent that 2007-08-29, forgot to change email address; sorry michael for sending this twice)