Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
A first look at Zfone (NewsForge)
NewsForge looks
at Zfone. "Zfone is PGP creator Phil Zimmermann's latest
brainchild, a small desktop application that encrypts VoIP softphone
conversations using strong encryption and peer-to-peer
communication. Zimmermann released the first public beta last month. While
I'm intrigued by the concept, getting the application to work is another
story."
(Log in to post comments)
Pity it's Shared Source, not free software Posted Apr 14, 2006 12:38 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] From the article: The license is quite restrictive; it prohibits licensees from (among other things) redistributing the source or binaries themselves and from publicly disclosing any security flaws without first informing Zimmermann. (Is there a more universal term than "shared source" for software which distributes source code under restrictive terms?)
that's OpenSource Posted Apr 14, 2006 13:26 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] OpenSource means that the source is open for you to look at it. The difference between OpenSource and free software is, that with the latter you also get rights to modify and redistribute it. Open source software _may_ be free software and free software always is also open source.
that's OpenSource Posted Apr 14, 2006 13:33 UTC (Fri) by michich (subscriber, #17902) [Link] That's not what open source means. Please read the Open Source Definition:http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
that's OpenSource Posted Apr 14, 2006 15:55 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] "That's not what open source means."
But OSI's definition of that term is purely artificial. It may be widely accepted, but that's all.
And that's what I wanted to point out: if "free software" was used for free software and all it's rights, "open source" would still be available for a usage that fits better. For example, software where you get the source code (it's open), but miss the rights you get with free software.
Instead we have two terms, that mean about the same and no term for something else.
that's OpenSource Posted Apr 14, 2006 16:08 UTC (Fri) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link] "Source Under Glass" maybe?
that's OpenSource Posted Apr 14, 2006 22:07 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link] michich is right: Free Software == Open Source Software. The Free Software wording (from RMS) was to scary for corporations, so IBM and friends created the Open Source name for it. Freedom can be scary for some! Openness seems to be fine though ;-)
Wrong Posted Apr 15, 2006 13:18 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] That is as wrong as it can be, according to the FSF: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''
Not that sure! Posted Apr 16, 2006 6:18 UTC (Sun) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link] We can make and (unfortunately) ought it correct given the correct use of capitalization.
Free Software > free software-
which can be translated into:
Open Source is always open source while open source _may_ be Open Source.
Don't forget that everybody on the other side of the FOSS fence plays with the words. Most download sites categorize FOSS as Freeware, some compagnies play voluntary or not with the words open and free, etc.
We should really invent a new word, foss software, and protect it from (accidental or not) abuse.
FSF Free Software != OSI Open Source, though close Posted Apr 17, 2006 1:09 UTC (Mon) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link] The terms are not identical, though they are close. FSF speaks of specific freedoms, in a given software work, which the OSI Open Source Definition applies to licensing terms and is specifically granted (or denied) to a particular license by the OSI board. While the effective meanings are very close, there are licenses the OSI board has recognized as OSD compliant which the FSF does not recognize, and there are licenses which have not yet been reviewed by the OSI board which pass the FSF four freedoms test. To this extent, the terms differ by their application. That's the pragmatic difference. On the moral side of the debate, the FSF is fundamentally about software freedoms, while the Open Source Definition and OSI were formed in large part to make the applied concepts of free software more paletable to business. I've come to feel that RMS is largely correct in stating that without the freedoms and moral aspects, Open Source is a rather empty concept. That said, I'll use both terms (with a strong preference to Free Software) in discussions, as suits the audience.
that's OpenSource Posted Apr 15, 2006 5:11 UTC (Sat) by lordsutch (guest, #53) [Link] Of course, so is the FSF's definition of "Free Software." The AOL and Earthlink CDs that Best Buy gives out are "free software" too, just not by the FSF's definition...
ok Posted Apr 17, 2006 9:37 UTC (Mon) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] I'd say you're right. So it seems that this is a case where English capitalization rules are a real advantage compared to for example German. "Free Software" is indeed something different to "free software" and if regarded as names "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" may have any meaning that is given to them.
|
|||||||||||||