On 2020-06-05 at 5:39 PM, sur-behoffski <sur_behoff...@grouse.com.au> wrote: >G'day all, > >[Sorry for breaking the thread -- digest strikes again...] > >Like RMS, I strongly dislike "Open Source" as an umbrella term, and strongly >prefer "Free (as in Freedom)" or "Libre" (e.g. LibreOffice): The underlying >concepts are massively, massively different.
Speaking of "underlying concepts", from the history and philosophy of GNU on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU, we can read where it says "The goal [of GNU] was to bring a completely free software operating system into existence. Stallman wanted computer users to be free to study the source code of the software they use, share software with other people, modify the behavior of software, and publish their modified versions of the software. This philosophy was later published as the GNU Manifesto in March 1985". Has that philosophy massively, massively changed since then? Not that I can see. Speaking of "massively, massively different", from the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GNU LICENSES at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney, we can read where it says "Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge". Do you expect me to believe that "free" software means "there is no limit on what price you can charge" for it? Okay, so enough of your word games (and theirs), let's get a third opinion from some subject matter experts, say like the OSI (Open Source Initiative). The OSI specifically states on their website at https://opensource.org/faq#free-software, that "'Free software' and 'open source software' are two terms for the same thing". Wow! That makes it sound like they aren't all that "massively, massively different" to me. All this word play alone is a very good reason to always be skeptical of open-source/free software licenses, especially US-centric ones basically claiming to be your best friend. But to get back to the actual topic here, the issue isn't the difference in meaning between the word "free" and the term "open-source". That is merely a red herring. The issue here is what does the GNU license say you can or cannot do with your product if you incorporate any of their products into your products API? It says your product will by default fall under the GNU license, and (according to OPEN SOURCE LICENSES EXPLAINED at https://resources.whitesourcesoftware.com/blog-whitesource/open-source-licenses-explained), "GPL is a copyleft license. This means that any software that is written based on any GPL component must be released as open source. The result is that any software that uses any GPL open source component (regardless of its percentage in the entire code) is required to release its full source code and all of the rights to modify and distribute the entire code". You can't gaslight me with your word games here, so don't even try. Regards, Andres _______________________________________________ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
