On Wednesday 30 September 2015 18:23:21 Doug wrote: > On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > /snip/ > > > The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter. > > > > But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different. > > The one is about a more efficient software production model, the other > > about the user's rights. > > > > But such "spirit" things are difficult to grasp at times :-) > > > > In practice, and technically, most Open Source software is Free, and all > > Free Software is Open Source. But watch those folks in a corporate > > environment awkwardly avoiding the F word -- or read Bruce Perens, one > > of those who coined Open Source writing that in hindsight it may have > > been a mistake to realize that the people behind those flavors are > > quite different. > > This whole (OT) discussion perverts the meaning of the word "free."* > In common usage, the word "free" means you do not have to pay money for it. > > Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is NOT > open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free software > which is not open source that probably most users of Linux are using today. > They[re _free_ becasue you didn't have to pay for it. simple as that. > > --doug > > * The American Heritage Dictionary shows "free" first in regard to > slavery, or arrest, etc. It goes on to discuss politics and free vs. > dictatorship. It eventually gets to "costing nothing; gratuitous: > _a free pass." All of these are certainly in common usage, but the > idea of "free" applying to software that one may share seems to be > unique to some Linux users. If you were to ask the average American > what his first definition of "free" would be, I would bet that he'd > say, "You don't have to pay for it."
They are open source, surely. Lisi
