Hello there,
with interest i Iread the proposed amendment/modification to the proposed European Copyright Laws. With horror, I learned that the terms Free Software and Open Source software are more or less used interchangeably.
Also, my understanding of Free Software/OSS was that releasing the (modified) code to the community is a requirement, and not an option. In the text it sounds like an option.
More precisely, I am unclear about the terms Free Software and OPen Source Software. Do you know of any Software that is both open source, and non-free, or that is free, but not Open Source?
Are theses distictions anything else than a political choice?
Robert
* RIBNITZ Robert writes:
More precisely, I am unclear about the terms Free Software and OPen Source Software. Do you know of any Software that is both open source, and non-free, or that is free, but not Open Source?
All Free Software is Open Source Software. But not all Open Source software is Free Software. Xv and Qt (before QPL) are for example Open Source software but not Free software. I suggest hat you read what the FSF has to say about this [1].
Are theses distictions anything else than a political choice?
Yes, Free Software is based on ethical and moral principals, Open Source software is not, it is based on pragmatism.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
ams@kemisten.nu (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
- RIBNITZ Robert writes:
More precisely, I am unclear about the terms Free Software and OPen Source Software. Do you know of any Software that is both open source, and non-free, or that is free, but not Open Source?
All Free Software is Open Source Software.
Not true. Using the distribution restriction option in section 8 of the GPL is not compatible with the Open Source Definition, section 5.
* Florian Weimer writes:
ams@kemisten.nu (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
- RIBNITZ Robert writes:
More precisely, I am unclear about the terms Free Software and OPen Source Software. Do you know of any Software that is both open source, and non-free, or that is free, but not Open Source?
All Free Software is Open Source Software.
Not true. Using the distribution restriction option in section 8 of the GPL is not compatible with the Open Source Definition, section 5.
Sorry? Where does the GPL discriminate against a person or a group?
To quote section 8 of the GNU GPL [1]:
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
And section 5 of the Open Source definition [2]:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
The GPL is an approved Open source license, so you are the one who is wrong. [3]
[1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [2]: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html [3]: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html
Florian Weimer Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE wrote:
Not true. Using the distribution restriction option in section 8 of the GPL is not compatible with the Open Source Definition, section 5.
How does geographic limitation translate into discrimination against a person or group of people? The same people can use the software elsewhere, surely? Surely this is another example of "Chinese whispers" in the OSD?
RIBNITZ Robert wrote:
More precisely, I am unclear about the terms Free Software and OPen Source Software.
Free Software guarantees certain Freedoms to be able to run, explore, share, modify and distribute the code. (Access to the source is essential to be able to do some of the above.)
Open Source suggests that you may (under certain conditions) have access to (some of) the Source (code).
Do you know of any Software that is both open source, and non-free,
There is plenty - from SuSE's Yast to Windows CE.
or that is free, but not Open Source?
No - this would not be possible (by definition).
Are theses distictions anything else than a political choice?
You mean the political choice between having freedom and not having freedom? All life is choice (and politics with a small 'p').
'Open Source' was started by a group of people who wished to promote Free Software by giving it a certain marketing spin. Unfortunately, by not emphasising Freedom, the term 'Open Source' now has little distinct meaning - and certainly does not apply exclusively to Free Software (cf WindowsCE).
For more info on Free Software (definition and philosophy) have a good look around www.fsf.org
hth
- Richard
|| On Wed, 01 May 2002 12:52:11 +0100 || "Richard Smedley" richard.smedley@futurenet.co.uk wrote:
rs> Open Source suggests that you may (under certain conditions) have rs> access to (some of) the Source (code).
This is indeed a valid interpretation of the term.
Also common is "Open Source as in the Open Source Definition" by Bruce Perens, which is essentially identical to the "Debian Free Software Guidelines."
This OSD was part of the (failed) attempt to create a marketing program for Free Software under the name "Open Source."
More information can always be found at
http://fsfeurope.org/documents/freesoftware.html http://fsfeurope.org/documents/whyfs.en.html
and of course on
Regards, Georg
On Qua, 2002-05-01 at 12:33, RIBNITZ Robert wrote:
with interest i Iread the proposed amendment/modification to the proposed European Copyright Laws. With horror, I learned that the terms Free Software and Open Source software are more or less used interchangeably.
I don't know what you are talking about. Could you send me an URL ? In any case, I'm answering some of the questions you've posed.
Also, my understanding of Free Software/OSS was that releasing the (modified) code to the community is a requirement, and not an option. In the text it sounds like an option.
It is an option. You are only required to supply the source code to people to which you distribute binaries. But remember that those people have the right to redistribute your work so it may reach the public or some public internet server.
More precisely, I am unclear about the terms Free Software and OPen Source Software. Do you know of any Software that is both open source, and non-free, or that is free, but not Open Source?
For more information on that subject please read http://fsfeurope.org/documents/whyfs.en.html. As for software that is Open Source and is not Free Software check for any software released under APSL (Apple Public Source License). You can see in http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html that OSI recognizes it as a valid Open Source license and in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html why it's not a Free Software license.
Are theses distictions anything else than a political choice?
I hope you can answer that for yourself after reading the references above.
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 01:33:16PM +0200, RIBNITZ Robert wrote:
with interest i Iread the proposed amendment/modification to the proposed European Copyright Laws. With horror, I learned that the terms Free Software and Open Source software are more or less used interchangeably.
Let me add to the answers that were already given by others. Note that the usage of the terms can only be understood if you examin them regarding a certain subject.
If you think about licenses, then "Open Source" is an attempt to use a new name for Free Software. The OSI criteria attempted to explain which licenses are Free Software with there own criteria. By design these criteria _should_ basically come to the same conclusions as the definition of Free Software by the FSF over the four freedoms.
This means: except for minor interpretational differences "Free Software" and "Open Source" regarding licenses both match the same set.
Both terms can be missunderstood in different was, though. Thus it is important to minimise that missunderstandings and use the better term. We strongly believe that Free Software is the better term and that the FSF criteria are a lot better to explain the concept.
Also, my understanding of Free Software/OSS was that releasing the (modified) code to the community is a requirement, and not an option. In the text it sounds like an option.
There are Free Software licenses which grant you all freedom, but do not require that published mofified software comes with source. These licenses do protect the freedom of the software less.
More precisely, I am unclear about the terms Free Software and OPen Source Software. Do you know of any Software that is both open source, and non-free, or that is free, but not Open Source?
They are all both or nothing, (apard from some cases where the interpretations of Free Software are diverging. An example is software under the Artistic license or the Apple license.)