www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       15/04/22 18:17:15

Modified files:
        philosophy     : open-source-misses-the-point.html 

Log message:
        Mention Open Watcom, whose source is open but not free.
        
        Clarify description of Tivoization.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.72&r2=1.73

Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html,v
retrieving revision 1.72
retrieving revision 1.73
diff -u -b -r1.72 -r1.73
--- open-source-misses-the-point.html   24 Oct 2014 14:47:31 -0000      1.72
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.html   22 Apr 2015 18:17:14 -0000      1.73
@@ -98,19 +98,26 @@
 those of free software.  As far as we know, all existing free software
 would qualify as open source.  Nearly all open source software is free
 software, but there are exceptions.  First, some open source licenses
-are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
-Fortunately, few programs use those licenses.</p>
-
-<p>Second, and more important, many products containing computers
-(including many Android devices) come with executable programs that
-correspond to free software source code, but the devices do not allow
-the user to install modified versions of those executables; only one
-special company has the power to modify them.  We call these devices
-&ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;, and the practice is called
-&ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product where we first saw it.
-These executables are not free software even though their source code
-is free software.  The criteria for open source do not recognize this
-issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code.</p>
+are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.  For
+example, &ldquo;Open Watcom&rdquo; is nonfree because its license does
+not allow making a modified version and using it privately.
+Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Second, and more important in practice, many products containing
+computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
+from installing different executables; only one privileged company can
+make executables that can run in the device or can access its full
+capabilities.  We call these devices &ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;, and the
+practice is called &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product (Tivo)
+where we first saw it.  Even if the executable is made from free
+source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the
+executable is nonfree.</p>
+
+<p>The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are
+concerned solely with the licensing of the source code.  Thus, these
+unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux
+that is open source and free, are open source but not free.  Many
+Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.</p>
 
 <h3>Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and
 &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;</h3>
@@ -440,7 +447,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/10/24 14:47:31 $
+$Date: 2015/04/22 18:17:14 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>