All free software is open source software. Here free refers to freedom, we are not talking of money.
Right, I think this qualifies as mass-miscommunication of all readers of that mag. It just sent me to sel-questioning mode. -- Gishu
I think this would clear things up:
The "Free" in Free Software referred to by Richard Stallman is "Freedom" and not "Free" as in the cost of the software. People used to associate the word "Free" with "Creap", "Low quality" thats the reason they coined the word "Open Source".
Now, what "Free software" we typically see in the windows world is "free" as in cost and not as in "freedom". You _dont_ have the freedom to see its source let alone modify it. There are plenty of Open Source Apps in the windows world too.
BUT Open Source software gives you the "freedom" to modify them but they can also be sold at a price > $0 which means you need to *pay* for the software _and_ you'll get the source along with it. An excellent example would be RHEL. You need to pay for it and you get it's source along with it. The beauty of OSS is that someone can buy RHEL, modify its source, and sell or give it away for free. This is currently whats happening with Cent OS.
This is my understanding of the OSS and "Free Software" philosophy of Richard Stallman / FSF. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Dinesh A. Joshi
On 4/14/06, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
Now, what "Free software" we typically see in the windows world is "free" as in cost and not as in "freedom". You _dont_ have the freedom to see its source let alone modify it. There are plenty of Open Source Apps in the windows world too.
BUT Open Source software gives you the "freedom" to modify them but they can also be sold at a price > $0 which means you need to *pay* for the software _and_ you'll get the source along with it.
That applies to GPL but does it apply to all open source licenses or even most of them? I think not based on a link in an eariler message. Please correct me if I have misunderstood. I don't have much knowledge in these licenses. Never read even one of them properly.
On Friday 14 April 2006 02:33 am, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
I think this would clear things up:
The "Free" in Free Software referred to by Richard Stallman is "Freedom" and not "Free" as in the cost of the software. People used to associate the word "Free" with "Creap", "Low quality" thats the reason they coined the word "Open Source".
The reason the term "Open Source" was coined was to change the world view that gpld software was political and idealogical (which it mostly is ). This helped dilute the political message and focus on the practical aspects of performance and costs, thusmaking it more platable to bussiness. They have succeeded to an extent that now u have two bit reporters and "technologists" pratilling nonsense about free software and even worse companies deliberately misreading or mischaracterising the gpl to extract undue advantage. Which created the necessitity for GPLV3.
BUT Open Source software gives you the "freedom" to modify them but they can also be sold at a price > $0 which means you need to *pay* for the software _and_ you'll get the source along with it.
Not true. Open source licences show you the code but can have nasty side effects. And gpld software can be sold for whatever price u deem fit.
An excellent example would be RHEL. You need to pay for it and you get it's source along with it. The beauty of OSS is that someone can buy RHEL, modify its source, and sell or give it away for free. This is currently whats happening with Cent OS.
This is my understanding of the OSS and "Free Software" philosophy of Richard Stallman / FSF. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The prime difference between the FSF and the OS camp is that the FSF values freedom over everything else and says so particularly to those who dont want to hear. OS guys say look there are tremendous advantages in freeing the source so please consider doing so.
So u have Solaris which is free in their own jail.
On Friday 14 April 2006 06:55, jtd wrote:
The reason the term "Open Source" was coined was to change the world view that gpld software was political and idealogical (which it mostly is ). This helped dilute the political message and focus on the practical aspects of performance and costs, thusmaking it more platable to bussiness. They have succeeded to an extent that now u have two bit reporters and "technologists" pratilling nonsense about free software and even worse companies deliberately misreading or mischaracterising the gpl to extract undue advantage. Which created the necessitity for GPLV3.
Agreed but according to Larry Augustin, Eric Raymond the term Open Source was invented to prevent people from associating "Free Software" with adjectives like "cheap", "worthless", "shoddy". They largely attribute the creation of the term to Christine Peterson.
BUT Open Source software gives you the "freedom" to modify them but they can also be sold at a price > $0 which means you need to *pay* for the software _and_ you'll get the source along with it.
Not true. Open source licences show you the code but can have nasty side effects. And gpld software can be sold for whatever price u deem fit.
Seems you misunderstood what I wrote. The "> $0" means it can be given away free of cost or at any price that the developers see fit.
On Saturday 15 April 2006 05:33 pm, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
Agreed but according to Larry Augustin, Eric Raymond the term Open Source was invented to prevent people from associating "Free Software" with adjectives like "cheap", "worthless", "shoddy". They largely attribute the creation of the term to Christine Peterson.
Hmm. Afair ERS promoted the term to make it palatable to bussiness and drew a lot of flak from coders. In any case the term does defocus the political issues and is grossly misused nowadays.
Seems you misunderstood what I wrote. The "> $0" means it can be given away free of cost or at any price that the developers see fit.
I did understand correctly, but was pointing out that not just Open Source but also gpld software can be sold cause gpl != open source. I also understand that your understanding is substantially correct but many others on the list may not be so fortunate. Hence the cribbing.
On Saturday 15 April 2006 16:22, jtd wrote:
I did understand correctly, but was pointing out that not just Open Source but also gpld software can be sold cause gpl != open source. I also understand that your understanding is substantially correct but many others on the list may not be so fortunate. Hence the cribbing. --
Right...I understood where I went wrong. I was considering GPLd software and OSS the same.
-
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
mehul -
Pillai, Gishu R (GE Infra, Energy)