Subject: Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:04:35 +0900

>>>>> "Kelly" == Kelly Anderson <Anderson> writes:

    Kelly> I am well aware of that, but the question was about free
    Kelly> software, not necessarily open source. It's a fine point to
    Kelly> be sure.

What do you think is the difference?  First, software is not free per
se; the license is.  And in practice there's almost no difference
between the judgments of the FSF and the OSI (and the one case where
they differ, the OSI judged a license to be open, but the FSF calls it
non-free because it requires *too much* publication of source).

    Kelly> I do know that theoretically, software written by the
    Kelly> government, or a contractor, is public domain.

True for works produced by the U.S. government, maybe true for the
contractor.  It depends on the terms of the contract.

I believe that the government can also acquire copyrights from others,
even its own product is automatically public domain.

    Kelly> My point is that there are certain types of software that
    Kelly> should not be free/open because of security concerns.

Just don't distribute such software.  A free license doesn't require
you to distribute software, only that if you do it must come with
source and you may not restrict redistribution.  Nor is deployment
within an organization necessarily distribution in the sense of a free
license.

-- 
Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory