[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms
From: |
Willem van der Walt |
Subject: |
Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:42:08 +0200 (SAST) |
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The two most usable OCR engines that is free of cost, open-source and
>
> You mean cuneiform and tesseract-ocr, I think. Are these programs
> free software? You cited the definition of free software correctly.
> As a factual question, do these two programs fit it?
They do fit it to some extent.
Tesseract-ocr is released under the apache version 2 license.
Cuneiform does not state a specific license, but it is more BSD-like. One
may basically do with it what you like as long as you keep the copyright
in tact.
As I read the license, one would be allowed to make modifications and sell
a binary-only copy if you like.
>
> Whether they are open source is not quite the same question.
> Most open source programs are free software, but there are exceptions
> because the two criteria are not the same.
>
> Whether they are available free of charge is simply beside the point.
> Adobe Flash Player is available free of charge, but it is proprietary
> and has malicious features.
>
> run under Linux/UNIX
>
> When you say "Linux", I would guess you mean the GNU/Linux system.
> Linux alone is not sufficient to run applications -- it is just a
> kernel, and you need more than that. Is that right?
Yes.
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html for more explanation.
>
> is not released under the GNU GPL license,
>
> The GNU GPL is one among several free software licenses. Programs
> which are not released under the GNU GPL may nonetheless be free. If
> a program is released under a free software license which is not the
> GNU GPL, it is still ethical, so we may as well use it when it's
> useful.
>
Yes, but what I was trying to say is that if two programs exist with about
the same functionallity and the one is released under theGNU-GPL and the
other one under a license that permit distribution of binary-only copies,
I would rather use the one released under the GPL. > See
gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
for a list of many known > free software licenses.
>
--
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail
legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard.
The full disclaimer details can be found at
http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner,
and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers for their
support.
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, (continued)
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Bill Cox, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Bill Cox, 2010/07/27
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Willem van der Walt, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Jason White, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Samuel Thibault, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Richard Stallman, 2010/07/29
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms,
Willem van der Walt <=
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Richard Stallman, 2010/07/30
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, PiƱeiro, 2010/07/30
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Richard Stallman, 2010/07/30
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Fernando H. F. Botelho, 2010/07/28
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Richard Stallman, 2010/07/29
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/29
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Richard Stallman, 2010/07/30
- Re: [Accessibility] Call to Arms, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/31
- [Accessibility] alternative approach discussions, Eric S. Johansson, 2010/07/31
- [Accessibility] Re: alternative approach discussions, Bill Cox, 2010/07/31