| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Free vs Open Source
Free vs Open Source
Posted Oct 3, 2005 14:43 UTC (Mon) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018)Parent article: What Is Free Software (O'ReillyNet)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.