[UPHPU] OT: open source software and freedom (was: Zend Studio)

Lonnie Olson 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.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
http://www.slackware.com/book/index.php?source=x68.html

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  
development model.

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.
Example:
OSS, but not Free:  Qt under the old license before QPL
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2482 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://uphpu.org/pipermail/uphpu/attachments/20050607/44620a8f/smime.bin


More information about the UPHPU mailing list