What Is Free Software (O'ReillyNet) [LWN.net]

Karl Fogel defines "free software" in this O'ReillyNet article. "Free software is software that may be modified and redistributed freely by anyone, with no significant restrictions on how the code may be changed, the uses to which it may be put, or the parties with whom it may be shared. From this simple definition flow many unexpected consequences."

(Log in to post comments)

What Is Free Software (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Oct 2, 2005 20:18 UTC (Sun) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

> Thus BSD code could be incorporated into proprietary systems, although of
> course that didn't detract from the freedom of the original code.

Using BSD style licensing, whether intentional or not, someone can start a project use as much community energy as desired, then take the project private while adding small but important proprietary and patented bits.

Maybe I need more education but my thought is that the author uses a lot of FSF "free" logic to back a conclusion that it doesn't matter. If a free software project is taken proprietary then it obviously isn't free anymore. I don't see much evidence to support a conclusion that it doesn't matter.

Strong vs weak free software licensing

Posted Oct 3, 2005 6:44 UTC (Mon) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]

With a copyleft, such as the GNU GPL, the code cannot be taken proprietary by any party -- ensuring that any improved versions that are distributed keep the same freedoms.

With a more permissive license, the software can be taken proprietary *in a particular fork* of that software. The software is still free upstream of that fork, and anyone can continue to improve the version before the fork, leaving the proprietary fork to its own fate.

Those who want all users of any version to know the software is free will choose a copyleft. Those who want the code to appeal to the most people will choose a more-permissive license, saying that proprietary forks don't matter.

Strong vs weak free software licensing

Posted Oct 3, 2005 17:50 UTC (Mon) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

> Those who want the code to appeal to the most people will choose a
> more-permissive license, saying that proprietary forks don't matter.

That statement *could* possibly be true in a world without software patents, but with software patents the proprietary fork could easily gain an unfair advantage. Can you even support the "appeal to the most people" statement.
I think it would mostly appeal to someone who wanted community help for a proprietary project. The GNU GPL gives the best chance for all participants to be treated equally and I beleive it appeals to the most people for that reason. The more-permissive license is just a get out of work free card for some propriety company.

Free vs Open Source

Posted Oct 3, 2005 14:43 UTC (Mon) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link]

I am surprised that the article does not really distinguish between Free (as in freedom), which implies open source, and Open Source, which does not imply free. An example of that is Nucleus: you can get the source code and compile it with your own compiler/optimisations, but you can't modify/distribute it.

Also, I am not sure that the GPL means you can always get the code. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it said that, if someone gives you the binary, you can demand the code. IOW, if I don't give you any binary, I can keep my derivative for myself. And that is indeed what some companies do: run Linux internally and never distribute anything to the outside.

Free vs Open Source

Posted Oct 6, 2005 9:39 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

Discussing anything gets really tedious if every participant insists on bringing along his own definition of key terms.

"Open Source" as commonly used does not, as you seem to think, mean simply that the sourcecode is open for inspection. (especially not when it's capitalised like that) Instead, the most common definition is the one given by the Open Source Institute.

In short, having the source be openly available is neccesary, but not sufficient to be Open Source.

The real difference between the Free Software and the Open Source movements is, to the extent that any difference exists at all, one of focus. Free Software essentially argues we should use Free Software because it is the right thing to do regardless of if such software is superior or inferior. Open Source instead argues that Open Source software inherently or atleast typically is pragmatically better than closed, and that one should use it for this reason.