I was quoting (in summary) the statement from tirwhan's post, and I agree it is muddled--and wrong.
There is, as you summarise, no such restriction imposed by the FSF definition. Indeed, the next two lines make that (in my interpretation) abundantly clear:
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.
And any suggestion that there is any legal or moral obligation to contact the original author to obtain permission to use his code (published under an FSF compatible license), in whole or in part, is not only incorrect; but it is damaging to the very concept of those licenses.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
ditto (except for the part claiming I said what I didn't).
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
| [reply] |