Open Source != Free Software
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| DarrenR114 Dec 15, 2006 6:55 AM EDT |
As Mr. Stallman has so often pointed out - Free Software is not the same thing as Open Source. And on that basis, as evidenced by the propagation of Open Source licenses, it is very plausible that the Free Software audience *is* shrinking. Mr. Hilf's statement says nothing about the Open Source audience. Now then - with the realities of business, interoperability is a *big* issue. The question is: What to do about it? Do we do like most of the Novell-bashers seem to imply we should do and ignore the 800-lb gorilla in the room that is Microsoft? I don't believe that would foster much in the way of future growth toward World Domination. This is just one developer's opinion - a developer that has to deal with the reality that his products have to work on both MS-Windows and Linux (I insisted on that much - otherwise it'd be 100% MS-Windows). |
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2006 9:12 AM EDT |
.And on that basis, as evidenced by the propagation of Open Source licenses, it is very plausible that the Free Software audience *is* shrinking. Not so plausible, but with an asterisk. It is possible that people who use the term "free software" are shrinking relative to the actual free software universe. As to the software itself, in 99.99% of the cases (ok - I made the number up. YOU prove me wrong!), Open Source software IS free software. I don't know of a single case where that isn't true, but, as a former lawyer, I need to leave myself some weasel room. ;0) |
| jdixon Dec 15, 2006 9:21 AM EDT |
Dino: Quoting from the FSF: 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). see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html Though I'd say that you're correct to at least two digits, and more likely three. |
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2006 11:09 AM EDT |
jdixon - To be Open Source in OSI terms, you must provide more than the freedom to look at the code. You must permit modification and re-distribution of the code. As I said, I don't know of any software that is Open Source in the OSI sense and is not also free software. It may exist, I just don't know what it is. |
| dcparris Dec 15, 2006 12:57 PM EDT |
dino, just look at the FSF's list of licenses, and which ones they approve/disapprove. They have a list of a number of licenses, along with where each license fits in the grand scheme of things, and which ones they discourage using. Any applications using some of those licenses will be "open source", but not "free". |
| swbrown Dec 15, 2006 1:17 PM EDT |
"As I said, I don't know of any software that is Open Source in the OSI sense and is not also free software." You have that the wrong way around. The entire point of the OSI was to present a weaker standard than that of Free Software to make it more palatable to business. It's why it was controversial, and I'd say why it failed, seeing as the central issue with software you'll see stated isn't "Is it Open Source?" anymore but is "Is it GPL-compatible?". |
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2006 5:23 PM EDT |
>You have that the wrong way around. OK guys, we seem to be having serious trouble with the English language here. I know exactly why the OSI was formed. I have even had the pleasure of chatting about it with both Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens (not at the same time -- a good thing considering when the chats took place). That has nothing to do with the fact that Open Source software is free software and has nothing to do with what I responded to, which is... The rather strange notion that a plethora of Open Source licenses -- most of which, by the way, are listed by the FSF as free licenses, whether or not they are also copyleft licenses or GPL compatible, could somehow shrink the free software audience. The software is free. There is more free software than ever and more people using free software than ever. You may call it whatever it pleases you to call it, but the free software audience is growing, not shrinking. |
| swbrown Dec 16, 2006 3:27 AM EDT |
"That has nothing to do with the fact that Open Source software is free software" Which is an untrue 'fact'. Real example: Reciprocal Public License. Officially OSI approved Open Source but also officially not a Free Software license. "You may call it whatever it pleases you to call it, but the free software audience is growing, not shrinking." Well, it was Microsoft saying this. :) If you pressed him on it, he'd probably creatively define 'audience'. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2006 4:16 AM EDT |
swbrown - I'll be darned! The weird part is that the RPL seems to be an effort to out-GPL the GPL. IE, if you make changes to the software, you are required to document and release them. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 16, 2006 5:31 AM EDT |
Don't get me wrong, Dino - I agree that FOSS usage is growing and not shrinking. I was just trying to put out a plausible reason that a MS spokesperson would say something so easily refuted or supported. In this case, at first glance, Hilf is spewing pure crap. I know enough about MS that they aren't usually so easily caught in an untruth (aka 'lie'). But hey, maybe they're slipping. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2006 5:59 AM EDT |
Darren - Ah - Always dangerous when you try to tie spin-speak to sensible roots. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!