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.
I think I read that 'Free' software can be closed - not available for peeking or modification. In which case, it's as good as proprietary/conventional software - I might be missing something here...
-- Gishu
Hi,
On 4/13/06, Pillai, Gishu R (GE Infra, Energy) gishu.pillai@bently.com wrote: <snip>
I think I read that 'Free' software can be closed - not available for peeking or modification. In which case, it's as good as proprietary/conventional software - I might be missing something here...
First and foremost Free Software Movement avoids the word "closed" and uses the word "Non-free" and "Proprietory" for the softwares which doesn't value your freedom or have four freedoms as told again and again by RMS and others.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Closed
So as far as I get your point, you read in the magazine that "Free Software" can be "Non-Free" or "Proprietory".This is just ridiculous.Either I'm not getting you point or the writer who said so needs to do some more reading and research on the issue.
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
On Thursday 13 April 2006 07:41 pm, nipra wrote:
First and foremost Free Software Movement avoids the word "closed" and uses the word "Non-free" and "Proprietory" for the softwares which doesn't value your freedom or have four freedoms as told again and again by RMS and others.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Closed
So as far as I get your point, you read in the magazine that "Free Software" can be "Non-Free" or "Proprietory".
It's not. There are hundreds of Phokat software which are non free and proprietory.
This is just ridiculous.Either I'm not getting you point or the writer who said so needs to do some more reading and research on the issue.
I think the piece needs to be read in context to make proper sense. But as it stands the statement is absolutely correct.
Rgds JTD
Sometime on Apr 13, n cobbled together some glyphs to say:
uses the word "Non-free" and "Proprietory" for the softwares which
proprietary means owned by someone. All free software is owned by the copyright holders. Only public domain software is not owned.
Hi,
On 4/15/06, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
Sometime on Apr 13, n cobbled together some glyphs to say:
uses the word "Non-free" and "Proprietory" for the softwares which
proprietary means owned by someone. All free software is owned by the copyright holders. Only public domain software is not owned.
Proprietory software means owned by someone with owner exercising control over it by means of putting up restrictions on use, redistribution or modification of software and thus eventually making it non-free.
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
Sometime on Apr 15, nipra assembled some asciibets to say:
proprietary means owned by someone. All free software is owned by the copyright holders. Only public domain software is not owned.
Proprietory software means owned by someone with owner exercising control over it by means of putting up restrictions on use, redistribution or modification of software and thus eventually making it non-free.
So are you saying that the GPL enforces no restrictions on the use, redistribution and modification of the software? Let me go over this.
Free to use without restriction - okay Free to redistribute without restriction - sort of okay Free to modify without restriction - nope
You are free to modify if and only if you either do not redistribute your modified version, or you release your modified version under the same terms.
This is a restriction on modification, and is only possible if you actually own the software, ie, the software is proprietary (note the spelling. proprietory is not a word).
"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48" Proprietary Pro*pri"e*ta*ry, a. L. proprietarius. Belonging, or pertaining, to a proprietor; considered as property; owned; as, proprietary medicine. 1913 Webster
Hi,
On 4/16/06, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
Sometime on Apr 15, nipra assembled some asciibets to say:
<snip>
Proprietory software means owned by someone with owner exercising control over it by means of putting up restrictions on use, redistribution or modification of software and thus eventually making it non-free.
So are you saying that the GPL enforces no restrictions on the use, redistribution and modification of the software? Let me go over this.
(1) Definitely not. What I'm trying to say is, owners of proprietary software exercise control and put up restrictions by means of copyright in such a way that it takes away the freedom of users.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware
Free Software license puts up restrictions by means of copyright to ensure users' freedom.
(2) To differentiate between what copyright is doing to make a proprietary software non-free and what copyright is doing to guarantee your freedom in case of Free Software, the term "copyleft" is used in stead of "copyright" for Free Software.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#WhatIsCopyleft
(3) From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
"Proprietary software is software that has restrictions on using and copying it, usually enforced by a proprietor. The prevention of use, copying, or modification can be achieved by legal or technical means. Technical means include releasing machine-readable binaries only, and withholding the human-readable source code.Legal means can involve software licensing, copyright and patent law. Proprietary software can be sold for money as commercial software or available at zero-price as freeware."
"The term is used by the Free Software Foundation to describe software that is not free software or semi-free software."
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
Sometime on Apr 16, nipra assembled some asciibets to say:
"The term is used by the Free Software Foundation to describe software that is not free software or semi-free software."
Unfortunately, neither Wikipedia, nor the Free Software Foundation wrote the English language. Their use is confusing just like their use of the term free. Perhaps it would have been better if Richard Stallman had chosen a language other than English to express his views. Any Indian language would fit the bill.
"The term is used by the Free Software Foundation to describe software that is not free software or semi-free software."
Unfortunately, neither Wikipedia, nor the Free Software Foundation wrote the English language. Their use is confusing just like their use of the term free. Perhaps it would have been better if Richard Stallman had chosen a language other than English to express his views. Any Indian language would fit the bill.
interesting..... the term free is almost always confusing.
so how would you have done it if it has to be defined in `Hindi` or any other indian language ?
Regards, Ranjeet Walunj
Sometime Today, rw cobbled together some glyphs to say:
so how would you have done it if it has to be defined in `Hindi` or any other indian language ?
Mukt/Azad. Mukt is probably better because it contrasts with Muft.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Philip,
so how would you have done it if it has to be defined in `Hindi` or any other indian language ?
Mukt/Azad. Mukt is probably better because it contrasts with Muft.
What about ``Swatantra'' ? 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
Sometime Today, BG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Mukt/Azad. Mukt is probably better because it contrasts with Muft.
What about ``Swatantra'' ?
Somehow makes me think of ISVs. While Swatantra may be correct, it could also be confused with independent rather than freedom. Swatantra means free in the 'not dependent on' sense.
On 4/17/06, Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com wrote:
Mukt/Azad. Mukt is probably better because it contrasts with Muft.
What about ``Swatantra'' ?
'Mukt ' seems better, 'swatantra' seems like independent system or self('swa') run something.
Regards, Rahul Bhalerao.
On Monday 17 April 2006 03:14 pm, Rahul Bhalerao wrote:
On 4/17/06, Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com wrote:
Mukt/Azad. Mukt is probably better because it contrasts with Muft.
What about ``Swatantra'' ?
'Mukt ' seems better, 'swatantra' seems like independent system or self('swa') run something.
Swatantra is correct. The goal of FSF is self dependence.
Sometime Today, j cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Swatantra is correct. The goal of FSF is self dependence.
That just creates islands of developers who never communicate with each other. It should be inter-dependence so that developers work to help each other.
Philip
On Monday 17 April 2006 05:31 pm, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, j cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Swatantra is correct. The goal of FSF is self dependence.
That just creates islands of developers who never communicate with each other. It should be inter-dependence so that developers work to help each other.
Shouldnt that be sharing rather than mere interdependence - which imo is sharing because u cant do without. Whereas sharing when one is swatantra is about sharing because you care.
This is a reply to the entire thread so far, so not quoting any of them.
I wish to clarify the difference by example, between OSS and <free> (swatantra/mukta/ajadi) software.
Take 'Pine', an email client, releases source code, you can modify the sources, but can't distribute the changes you make according to pine license. Such a software is open source according to OSI. So, opening is not enough, we need the freedom to distribute the changes we make. Similarly 'scilab', a scientific application, is open source but not a <free> software.
Therefore, all <free> software is open source, but not vice versa. So, free software is a proper subset of open source software.
However, the number of open source applications that are not free software is very very tiny. So, it is also correct to say MOST open source applications are free software. Count the number of applications, not the number of licenses, to get the correct inclusion relation between them. If, OSI excludes those few applications that do not give the freedom to distribute the changes, then all <free> software is open source and vice versa. FSF should not change its stand is very clear, if you see how carefully the <free> software is defined. OSI's definition is left vague. May be business thrives by being vague. Let us ask OSI to modify their license listing policy.
The use of the term 'open source' by the OSI may have created a nice term for the tongue, but at the cost of freedom. But, as I told you MOST open source applications do give you the freedom anyway. Still, it is surprising that OSI advocates seldom talk of the values like freedom. They continue to fetch contracts from govt and companies by arguing that oss is economical. Remember, they said they wanted to eliminate precisely this problem when they chose 'open' in place of 'free'. Did they succeed in clarifying? Certainly not.
Open source adherents talk of total cost of ownership, while <free> software people say freedom is always expensive for we need to protect it constantly. That is why I always end my speach with: "Run for freedom even if it is expensive!" In order to sustain freedom we need to constantly work against the tendencies that try to take away our freedom. Metaphorically, a system must do work to maintain its stability, other wise the system will tend to a state of higher entropy. <Free> software community is an open system, like a living organism, takes feed from the environment and sustains itself by working against non-free software and those who promote them.
I agree with the interpretation that <free> software is a social, cultural movement with wider implications to the future of human society. open source movement, if at all it is, emphasizes technology and a development model. I have no disagreements with their development model.
If only OSI mends their licensing list policy, the differences between <free> and open source community will become thinner, if not disappear.
Nagarjuna
On Monday 17 April 2006 12:01, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, j cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Swatantra is correct. The goal of FSF is self dependence.
That just creates islands of developers who never communicate with each other. It should be inter-dependence so that developers work to help each other.
Umm...isn't GNU / FSF all about collaborative development and sharing?
On 17/04/06 17:32 +0530, jtd wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 03:14 pm, Rahul Bhalerao wrote:
On 4/17/06, Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com wrote:
Mukt/Azad. Mukt is probably better because it contrasts with Muft.
What about ``Swatantra'' ?
'Mukt ' seems better, 'swatantra' seems like independent system or self('swa') run something.
Swatantra is correct. The goal of FSF is self dependence.
Mukt is free as in freedom. Swatantra is independent (or self-controlled, if you prefer). Muft is free as in beer.
Devdas Bhagat
On Sunday 16 April 2006 21:08, Philip Tellis wrote:
Unfortunately, neither Wikipedia, nor the Free Software Foundation wrote the English language. Their use is confusing just like their use of the term free. Perhaps it would have been better if Richard Stallman had chosen a language other than English to express his views. Any Indian language would fit the bill.
Perhaps Sanskrit is the best language for writing it. There is no ambiguity and no way you can change / twist the meaning :)
On Saturday 15 April 2006 19:42, Philip Tellis wrote:
Free to use without restriction - okay Free to redistribute without restriction - sort of okay Free to modify without restriction - nope
You are free to modify if and only if you either do not redistribute your modified version, or you release your modified version under the same terms.
In support of your statement I am quoting the GPL: The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
-
Baishampayan Ghose -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
Nagarjuna G. -
nipra -
Philip Tellis -
Pillai, Gishu R (GE Infra, Energy) -
Rahul Bhalerao -
ranjeet walunj