alt Hacker NewsYes, I wonder what false positives and false negatives will result from that definition. I suppose Microsoft permits corporate licensees to copy (to all their PCs and servers), redistribute (internally), and modify (by corporate software developers and also by sysadmins using group policy) the software.
Maybe it should say, the software 'code' - requiring open source code - and to do it all 'for free'.
there must be an reasonable assumption of what counts as such in the first place. being modifiable and publicly available in both source and binary form sound like enough to me.