-----Original Message----- From: Pillai, Gishu R (GE Infra, Energy) Sent: 10 April 2006 18:10 To: 'GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India' Subject: [OT] - OSS Philosophy Explained
-----Original Message----- From: linuxers-bounces@mm.glug-bom.org [mailto:linuxers-bounces@mm.glug-bom.org]On Behalf Of Frederick Noronha (FN) Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Digit April 2006... and FLOSS
- Fast track to [GNU]Linux, a 178-page handy guide small-sized.
Hey glad that you brought this up.. Just watched Revolution OS this weekend + then I bought this Digit copy The fast track guide says pg 16. top - "Free software need not be open source" Is this true? I thought free = free to improve and distrib... Since this is from Digit, I don't take it on face value.
Also on the business model (can of worms alert), Stallman n co say that the money lies in providing support to OSS. The movie showed that despite initial hoopla, VA Linux went down under due to mounting losses. Anyone know of a slightly more lived success story? This is an aspect that bothers me at times.
-- Gishu
Also on the business model (can of worms alert), Stallman n co say that the money lies in providing support to OSS. The movie showed that despite initial hoopla, VA Linux went down under due to mounting losses. Anyone know of a slightly more lived success story? This is an aspect that bothers me at times.
Redhat, Novell, Canonical (Ubuntu) just to name a few. No to mention all those businesses that thrive on providing OSS based solutions with their proprietary apps mixed in.
And talking about VA Software (previously VA Linux) going down under, they have recently announced a profitable quarter (disclaimer: business terms make me dizzy so if there's any fine print there that says otherwise then please let me know)
http://www.vasoftware.com/news/press.php/2006/1560.html
Their major sources of income probably are Slashdot and sourceforge.
Regards, Siddhesh
Hi,
On 4/13/06, Pillai, Gishu R (GE Infra, Energy) gishu.pillai@bently.com wrote:
<snip>
Hey glad that you brought this up.. Just watched Revolution OS this weekend
- then I bought this Digit copy
The fast track guide says pg 16. top - "Free software need not be open source" Is this true? I thought free = free to improve and distrib... Since this is from Digit, I don't take it on face value.
As far as the definition goes I don't find any difference between Open Source Software and Free Software. But Open Source Movement has different goals than Free Software Movement.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
While Open Source Movement is about the technical superiority of Open Source, Free Software Movement emphasizes on ethical issues and issues related to freedom. Releasing the source code and henceforth allowing it to be viewed and modified by many does make Free Software better,technically superior and less vulnerable. But yes it's one of the advantage of valuing your and others freedom.
As far as I know there is at least one Open Source license (read RECIPROCAL PUBLIC LICENSE) that doesn't qualify to be a Free Software License.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
Hi,
On Thursday 13 April 2006 18:23, Pillai, Gishu R (GE Infra, Energy) wrote:
Hey glad that you brought this up.. Just watched Revolution OS this weekend
- then I bought this Digit copy
The fast track guide says pg 16. top - "Free software need not be open source" Is this true? I thought free = free to improve and distrib... Since this is from Digit, I don't take it on face value.
All free software is open source software. Here free refers to freedom, we are not talking of money.
Free software is a subset of open source software.
*Freeware* may not be open source. In case of freeware, we are talking of money
-Devendra Laulkar.
Hi,
On 4/13/06, devendralaulkar@gmail.com devendralaulkar@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
Free software is a subset of open source software.
I beg to differ.There are many Free Software Licenses that are not listed in OSI certified license list.At the last count there were around 65 Free Software Licenses(GPL compatible or incompatible) listed against around 57 OSI certified. Certainly a subset can't have more elements than its parent set :-)
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
On Thursday 13 April 2006 20:02, nipra wrote:
On 4/13/06, devendralaulkar@gmail.com devendralaulkar@gmail.com wrote:
Free software is a subset of open source software.
I beg to differ.There are many Free Software Licenses that are not listed in OSI certified license list.At the last count there were around 65 Free Software Licenses(GPL compatible or incompatible) listed against around 57 OSI certified. Certainly a subset can't have more elements than its parent set :-)
If we consider free software, then the source code of the software must be available. In spirit, free software is a subset of open source software.
Regarding licenses, well, you really cannot count the number of licenses and compare free and open source software.
-Devendra Laulkar.
Hi,
On 4/14/06, devendralaulkar@gmail.com devendralaulkar@gmail.com wrote:
If we consider free software, then the source code of the software must be available. In spirit, free software is a subset of open source software.
Free Software is not only about the availability of source code.In fact access to the source code is just the precondition to Freedom 1 and Freedom 3. You need source code to study how the program works (Freedom 1). You need source code to improve the program, and release your improvement to the public(Freedom 3).
Regarding licenses, well, you really cannot count the number of licenses and compare free and open source software.
Yes I was wrong but you perhaps didn't get my point.One can't compare Open Source and Free Software by calling one the subset of other.There are licenses which are OSI certified but not Free Software and vice versa.
The only way I can compare Open Source and Free Software is that:
(1) The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software.(Going by the FAQ)
http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php
(2) Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
Hi,
On Friday 14 April 2006 12:55, nipra wrote:
Yes I was wrong but you perhaps didn't get my point.One can't compare Open Source and Free Software by calling one the subset of other.There are licenses which are OSI certified but not Free Software and vice versa.
And you are not getting mine ! In *spirit* you can say all free software is open source software.
The source code of all free software *must* be available for freedom. 1 : The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
Linux is free software. Linux is open source software in sense that the source code is available.
Please note, I am not speaking of licensing in any of my previous mails. I am not speaking of Open Source tm, OSI Certification, or Open Source Development Methodology.
There are licenses which are OSI certified but not Free Software and vice versa.
Ok, this is interesting. I would like to know which licenses would make some software Free Software but not Open Source software.
Or rather checking out the meaning of Free software : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and Open Source Software: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php come up with condition which would make some software Free Software but not Open Source software.
-Devendra.
Hi,
On 4/14/06, devendralaulkar@gmail.com devendralaulkar@gmail.com wrote:
Linux is free software. Linux is open source software in sense that the source code is available.
So according to you Open Source means just availability of source code. This is interesting.
Please note, I am not speaking of licensing in any of my previous mails. I am not speaking of Open Source tm, OSI Certification, or Open Source Development Methodology.
May I know what *Open Source* term you are talking of. When we talk of the term Open Source it definitely refers to Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/ Please don't confuse eveyone further.
There are licenses which are OSI certified but not Free Software and vice versa.
Ok, this is interesting. I would like to know which licenses would make some software Free Software but not Open Source software.
Let me repeat... there are Free Software licenses that are not listed in OSI certified list of Open Source licenses. You can verify yourself. Why? I don't know. May be because you have to apply to get an OSI certification and no one bothered to apply for those licenses to get an OSI certification.
Or rather checking out the meaning of Free software : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and Open Source Software: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php come up with condition which would make some software Free Software but not Open Source software.
Did I ever claim that there are conditions in Open Source definitions that restricts a license from being labelled Free Software.Even if there is one I don't know because I'm too novice to understand intricacies of the definition and various licensing terms. Quoting from the article:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
"The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL)."
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
Hi,
On Friday 14 April 2006 19:25, nipra wrote:
May I know what *Open Source* term you are talking of. When we talk of the term Open Source it definitely refers to Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/ Please don't confuse eveyone further.
You are right, I am confusing everyone. Mea Culpa. Let me accept the OSI definition of Open Source and return to the original question. btw who do you refer to as "we" ?
Or rather checking out the meaning of Free software : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and Open Source Software: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php come up with condition which would make some software Free Software but not Open Source software.
Did I ever claim that there are conditions in Open Source definitions that restricts a license from being labelled Free Software.Even if
No you did not, and I feel they are none. Rather Open Source definitions are less strict.
Looking at the definitions of both free software and open source software, I feel that all free software is subset of open source software.
Just because some licenses are not OSI certified or don't appear in some list does not invalidate the above statement. As you were saying, they might be not be OSI certified because no one was interested in getting them certified.
there is one I don't know because I'm too novice to understand intricacies of the definition and various licensing terms. Quoting from the article:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
"The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL)."
I think the above paragraph answers most of the questions raised. Also, I think it gives one interpretation of "open source" software.
-Devendra Laulkar.
p.s. Why is this thread labelled OT ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Devendra,
May I know what *Open Source* term you are talking of. When we talk of the term Open Source it definitely refers to Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/ Please don't confuse eveyone further.
You are right, I am confusing everyone. Mea Culpa. Let me accept the OSI definition of Open Source and return to the original question. btw who do you refer to as "we" ?
By `we' Nikhil means the members of the Free Software community. Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
Hi,
On 4/14/06, devendralaulkar@gmail.com devendralaulkar@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
btw who do you refer to as "we" ?
I don't understand how this question is relevant in the discussion.Should I consider it as *sarcasm*? See your previous mails and search if you have ever used the term "we". As in my case I have used the term "we" to refer to a community or group of like minded people.
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
On Thursday 13 April 2006 06:23 pm, Pillai, Gishu R (GE Infra, Energy) wrote:
- Fast track to [GNU]Linux, a 178-page handy guide small-sized.
Hey glad that you brought this up.. Just watched Revolution OS this weekend + then I bought this Digit copy The fast track guide says pg 16. top - "Free software need not be open source" Is this true? I thought free = free to improve and distrib... Since this is from Digit, I don't take it on face value.
Ah English!. Free as in beer softwareneed not be opensource at all. Nor is open source free (as in beer) or open as in gpld. You HAVE to get into the specifics of the licence to understand what exactly is "free" or "open" about a particular piece of software.
Also on the business model (can of worms alert), Stallman n co say that the money lies in providing support to OSS. The movie showed that despite initial hoopla, VA Linux went down under due to mounting losses.
VA linux was taken over by a Japanese company and did pretty well. In any case GNU software has very little to do with business. Bad managemnet can shred any company very quickly. And major shifts in society are the major cause of success and failure rather than any fancy management.
Anyone know of a slightly more lived success story? This is an aspect that bothers me at times.
Google, RH, Novell, Hotmail - ya they used bsd. And twisting things u could say M$ - they used bsd network stack and NCSA mosaic for the core of IE (god they would have been dead long ago), Cisco - IOS is some derivative of bsd. And scores of small companies u will never hear of. GNU software has fragmented the market to an extent that makes it impossible for behemoths to survive let alone "succeed". And the yardstick of "success" as defined by current economic practices is one can o worms u would do well to look into carefully before applying to anything other than canoworms.
Hang around you will have many more"successess" as the biggest can o worms eats itself up.
-
Baishampayan Ghose -
Devdas Bhagat -
devendralaulkar＠gmail.com -
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
nipra -
Pillai, Gishu R (GE Infra, Energy) -
Siddhesh Poyarekar