Drupal
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| AwesomeTux Mar 07, 2009 12:22 AM EDT |
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 Mar 07, 2009 2:19 AM EDT |
Anything covered by the GPL is by definition Open Source, so in the case of the article the term is used correctly. |
| AwesomeTux Mar 07, 2009 2:45 AM EDT |
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 Mar 07, 2009 4:11 AM EDT |
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 Mar 07, 2009 4:30 AM EDT |
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 Mar 07, 2009 4:34 AM EDT |
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 Mar 07, 2009 11:38 AM EDT |
> 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 Mar 08, 2009 3:23 PM EDT |
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. |
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!