On Thursday 03 October 2002 18:38, Oron Peled wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:33:45 +0300 > > Michael Stolovitzsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Open Source = software that is accompanied by sources, whether commercial > > or not, whether are derivative works permitted or not. > > NO, NO, NO. Please reread the Open-Source-Definition (in > www.opensource.org) permitting derivative work is one of the conditions > required to call software "Open Source". >
I have a hard time why'd we trust OSI with their definition. I doubt anyone really coined the term, and the term itself is self-evident. That OSI tries to redefine it and stick the free software flag in it doesn't mean we have to comply with an attempt to abuse it. "Open Source" only means that the software sources aren't withheld by the authors. Remember the times when no one'd even THINK to distribute the software in binaries without sources? That's open source. > E.g: Sun distributes the source to the JDK under Sun-Community-License, > which is definitely not Open-Source because it DOES NOT permit > redistribution of the (possibley modified) source. No, it is definitely open source because its sources are open. What OSI might or might not think about it is as irrelevant and pointless as their attempts to abuse the English language. Kudos to OSI, but they're not the final authority over two words that have obvious meanings themselves. > > > IANAL. > > Neither do I, but we should try very hard to be precise about these terms. > Basically, there is no difference between the requirements from Open-Source > software and Free-Software (except from copyleft licenses which *requires* > to redistribute with source). Yes there is. Free as in freedom software is implicitly open source. Freeware (free as in beer) software is distributed without a requirement to compensate the author and might or might not be open source. Open source software is not necessarily free or even freeware. Not the other way around. I'm least interested in how GNU makes it sound, OSI makes it sound, Canada makes it sound and whatnot. Binary-only software -> closed source Software that's accompanied with sources -> open source open source + freeware + permission to modify the source freely and distribute modifications = free software. > > The difference is ideological and not practical. The main difference is > whether we choose to: > 1. Use "Open-Source" software because it is demonstrated to > be better model for software development and maintenance > (i.e: have practical value). The word is "technically superior". > 2. Or we choose "Free-Software" because locking the source is > morally flawed (i.e: it is "wrong" not to give programmers > the right to modify and redistribute the source). > I t is morally wrong to withhold the sources for the software; however sublicensing, redistribution and derivative modifications are a matter of intellectual property whether you like it or not. People invest their time, money, skill and talent into writing code. They don't have a moral right to hide the code or demand additional fee, but they do have a perfect moral right to set the conditions under which the code is distributed. How are those conditions enforces is beyond the scope of this conversation. 3. We choose English and ignore the zealots who preach to do otherwise. Stallman's insane worship of everyone-write-free-software-for-everyone is a bit, er, overrated. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron > > 3Com only purchased rights to the numbers '3' '5' and '9', Intel > owns '4', '8', '6', and '2'. '0' and '1' are still in the public > domain ;-) > -Donald Becker > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" ================================================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
