Advanced

Open Source -- Is it Free?

Posted by Scott_Ruecker on · 8 comments
Government Technology; By David Aden 		Mail this story
Print this story

"Open source" has come a long way and with the new administration adopting the open source content management system Drupal to power the recovery.gov Web site, open source's visibility will likely get another big boost. Speaking from the standpoint of a developer, the number of tools, utilities and programs available under open source licensing continues to be very exciting. But it is also true that confusions still persist about what it is and, in particular, about its costs. "Open source" and "free" are not synonymous -- though there is a relationship between the two terms.

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: News Story

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (8)

AwesomeTux ·
You know Drupal is free (as in freedom), open source, and free of cost. So in this case "open source" is free software, they just call it by an incorrect name.
azerthoth ·
Anything covered by the GPL is by definition Open Source, so in the case of the article the term is used correctly.
AwesomeTux ·
Ah-hem, incorrect.

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." in the GNU General Public License version 3, and, paraphrased differently -- but still in -- version 1 and 2.

Where if a piece of software is called "open source" it can still contain some proprietary code, and cost money. An open source license would be one by the Open Source Initiative based on their Open Source Definition. The Free Software Foundation has related but distinct criteria for evaluating whether or not a license qualifies a program as free software.

Though, all licenses qualified as free software are also considered open source licenses. But it does not work vice versa.

Also, "correctly" would mean that the software license qualified as free software, thus, it would be preferred by the GNU to be called free software, not open source software.
azerthoth ·
read what I said again, seriously. I said anything that is GPL'd is by definition open source. I did not say anything that is open source can be covered by the GPL.
AwesomeTux ·
But if it's been GPL'd, it should be called "free software." Open source would be incorrect. To be "open source" by definition, it would have to be a license based on the Open Source Initiative's "Open Source Definition." And only that, thus, it could not be GPL'd. So, "free software" describes what Drupal is best.
AwesomeTux ·
Still, it's nice to see Recovery.gov using Drupal. And Apache apparently. Hopefully it's GNU/Linux running on those servers as well. I know WhiteHouse.gov sure as hell isn't running GNU/Linux. Sadly.
jdixon ·
> But if it's been GPL'd, it should be called "free software." Open source would be incorrect.

No, it wouldn't be. The GPL is a recognized "Open Source" license. The GPL is both, and can be referred to by either term. What the FSF prefers. whether we agree with them or not, is immaterial.
hkwint ·
GPL is both open source and free software.

Take spaghetti: It's both pasta and food, but if the maker of the spaghetti said you should only refer to it as being pasta, saying therefore it isn't food is bollocks.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post