In his note, Stallman made clear the difference between Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and open source as conceived by Eric Raymond and supporters in the business community. FOSS is not just "free as in free beer". Under FOSS software is free, not just for the user. The software itself has liberties. To Stallman, and to other FOSS advocates, this implies an obligation on the part of those who benefit from free software, which is to help the software grow, to contribute their additions back to the commons.
Full story »
http://www.zdnet.com –
- Login to post comments
TDTwister
14 years 13 weeks 2 hours 48 min ago
Unless I understand somthing wrong!
To the best of my knowledge free software does not stop you from building proprietary software on top of them. It just says that if you do that keep them for your self. If you choose to give them or even sell them to someone else then you have to give to that someone the same freedoms you got from the original software. In contrast with open source (or Open Core) where under some licenses someone can give a close source "proprietary software" to someone in the "traditional" sense. Again FSF never oppose to the idea that if you write or improve a software you can keep it for your self. Just if you give it to someone do so like you respect that "persons freedoms". After all proprietary software in the "traditional" sense happens by accident. If humans where able to understand binary code the same way a machine does then all software would have been ... may be not free software but open source.
stargrave
14 years 13 weeks 1 hour 20 min ago
Re: Unless I understand something wrong!
To the best of my knowledge free software does not stop you from building proprietary software on top of them. It just says that if you do that keep them for your self. If you choose to give them or even sell them to someone else then you have to give to that someone the same freedoms you got from the original software.
Yeah, you are right -- you have to provide the same four freedoms if you want to share, give, sell, publish, whatever it. But I think that RMS and FSF do not think, that that kind of software (that won't go anywhere "outside" your own) is interesting at all. Most of us (in my opinion) believes that software is something that can be given (sold, etc) to someone else and all discussion is going around that. Non-copylefted free software does not force you to provide those freedoms, thus gaining ability to create proprietary software without any obligations. Copylefted (GPLed for example) force you to do that.
If humans where able to understand binary code the same way a machine does then all software would have been ... may be not free software but open source.
Yeah :-), It will be good of course. However licenses can forbid sharing, modifying and so on -- so it will be open source software of course. But I think that there can appear proprietary assembler processors and hardware :-)
TDTwister
14 years 12 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago
Ok this is the part I do not get...
Why would anyone build proprietary software on top OSS and then refuse to give to anyone the freedoms. Is a matter of respect to that person or business that receive the program. I could understand why in some cases when giving software to business you may restrict the freedom to share it or even modify the software under the original maintenance/support agreement but to the best of my understanding is unfair to restrict anyone freedoms for (what I think) no reason.
stargrave
14 years 12 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago
Re: Ok this is the part I do not get...
The reason as always the same -- money. All restrictions related to proprietary software are always lead to clean up your pockets from money. Always. Either to make you addict from one kind of software, to force you to pay for another related one. All those "30 days trial" are aimed to addict you. Just the same as with narcotics -- first dose is free. It is not because of their "kindness", but because of the fact that you will be willing to pay them for another ones.
It is immoral, asocial -- it is business. Good people won't create proprietary software.
can.axis
14 years 13 weeks 39 min 19 sec ago
The Free Software MVT is a political cause, not a technical one
The best definition of Free Software vs. open source that I know is that «the free software movement is a political cause, not a technical one.»
TDTwister
14 years 12 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago
Agreed
I may also add that is a social movement ...