[UPHPU] OT: open source software and freedom (was: Zend Studio)
fungus at aros.net
Tue Jun 7 12:09:38 MDT 2005
On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Mac Newbold wrote:
> They are not the same, but they go hand in hand, and open source
> software is by definition free (as in beer at least, if not as in
> speech). The same goes the opposite direction: free (as in speech)
> software is also open source, by definition. If you _must_ buy it,
> then it isn't Free after all, it's just got a license that allows
> you to do more with it.
> The practical differences are even smaller than the technical/
> ideological ones. Debating them doesn't have much useful purpose
> that I can see.
Ok, let me explain the difference.
Open source software, does not specify any freedoms by definition.
An OSS project can have a license that restricts what you do with
that source code. This is *not* Free. Open source only imposes that
the project should have source publicly available. Open source is a
Free Software, specifies Freedom that comes with the source code. It
does not specify that the source code be *publicly* available. You
can choose to only distribute for a fee. Free Software is a philosophy.
In general *most* Free Software projects are Open source, and many
Open source projects are Free. But this is not inherently linked.
OSS, but not Free: Qt under the old license before QPL
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2482 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://uphpu.org/pipermail/uphpu/attachments/20050607/44620a8f/smime.bin
More information about the UPHPU