Alan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was a main reason the term open-source was created.
My impression was that "Open Source" was coined to get around the
philosophical issues that make the suits uncomfortable.
"Open Source" and "Free as in Freedom" are _not_ interchangeable terms.
Micro$oft, Apple and Sun all provide source code - to those they deem
worthy. However, not all of that source is unencumbered in what the user
may do with it. Much of it is offered under the "Look but don't touch"
rule (San Diegans will especially appreciate that rule).
Open Source may mean I can use and modify the source but not
re-distribute those changes, either in source or binary form. I might
only be able to do so if I assign all my changes and/or rights back to
the source's owner <cough> Sun <cough>.
"Free" means I can do whatever the hell I want, both with the source and
the binary with few or no onerous conditions. Public domain software
would be the purest form. The BSD license a bit less (must retain
original copyright attributions), and GPL is a bit less yet (you get it
from me under the same terms and conditions I got it from him).
As for Stallman using Free. I think he'd prefer that software be free in
every sense of the word, but he's smart enough to know that's not
practical(in today's world anyway).
-ajb
He's certainly not fool enough to believe that a developer's *time* is
worth nothing. Nor support, nor packaging, nor distribution, etc. Even
with those costs, the software itself can be gratis. Providing one is
enterprising enough to build a business model <cough> <cough> (Redhat)
<cough> <cough> around that philosophy.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
