You are confusing Free Software with Freeware. Free Software is about the freedom to run, copy, distribute, sell, study, change, and improve, the software. Freeware is gratis software, free of charge software. So "Open Source" does equal "Free Software" but it does not equal "Freeware". In actuality, most "Open Source" software is Free Software (it even says so in the license, the GPL is a Free Software license NOT an Open Source license), Free Software pre-dates Open Source.
@TheJakeDTH no i do not believe i am confusing he issue, there is free as in freedom and free as in free of charge, have a look at my "Open Source & Free software" video
open source was originally called free software, but was changed because buisness' assosiated free with crappy, cheap, ect. I know what u mean and pretty much all open source software used the gpl which means that it has to be free "cost wise" and people must be able to modd it. and yes OSX has some open source parts but the OS as a whole is closed so it dont count.
XNU is not a hybrid of BSD and MACH. The kernel is MACH implemented in the fashion of a monolithic kernel (MACH really is a micro kernel). The BSD part manages user processes and resources. BSD interacts with the XNU kernel through an API written by apple.
Open source is mean free. If you apply restrictions to code that I can download then it is OPEN. Read up on openbsd and I think that is the true definition of OPEN source. If you apply restrictions to code, it is AVAILABLE source, not open.
The gpl doesn't require that the software be free "cost wise." In fact, the gpl prohibits that requirement. The gpl does, however, make selling gpl'd software highly unprofitable.
well, you can have completely free program from source code :P ! I mean, you can pay for RedHat or get source code and make a free legal iso out of it, another example is Xchat (windows) it's not for free, but you can get source code and compile it yourself (but linux's is for free)
opens-source means free... Mac open-sourced SOME parts, which made it not free ;)
Most programers have a donation program which I think is great. That give the feel & the choice to reward the programer. I would personally invest more on developers than the commercials. Downside of this like you mentioned is the slight focus of some about the developping...
A controversy maybe about the license part having someone use an original open source program mend it and create commercial plugins (eg MSU plugins for virtualdub) they created commercial paid plugins for companies. Don't know how the licence guards people taking advantage off of this type of open source. May be you know more about the legal part...
I personally think open source is great seeing from someone who search a program he doesn't want spend money on. And who wouldn't? This is proposed mine as well use it.
Not to correct you, I really enjoy your videos, but isn't the Kernel inside OSX XNU? It does use code from the BSD kernel but they're fundamentally different.
yep you are correct, if you look at the very first comment, i noticed that I left out the mach kernel in the vid, so i added it as a comment. freebsd along with the mach kernel make XNU. I just wanted to show the open source part of the kernel rooting from bsd to apple's own. Thanks for the comment :)
I'm just going to say this. Thanks to the Microsoft Anti-trust case that Microsoft was found guilty of Microsoft has to give away half of there source code of Microsoft Office to open source and Microsoft is not aloud to get any money off the Office open source. That means with OpenOffice that uses this source code don't owe Microsoft anything. ;)
your taking me out of cantext mrbit. i dont care technically what open source is. 80 percent of the world think Free when they see open source. Your splitting hairs here dude. watch wadeabys vid on linux. His definition reads about it being free etc. to encourage development. not everyone wants to share there stuff. IM TALKING ABOUT FREE STUFF. i consider anything you have to pay for not open source. how is it open if you have to pay for it?
this is not directed at any person but the use and open source as free. It is one thing to argue people wanting everything for free and another to always call it open source. As a developer I can tell you that many, many times open source leads to getting paid.
look up the definition in the dictionary of open source. The MAIN part of open source is Free. Thats the whole point. Some open source is not free but when open source is spoken off, free comes to mind. Even the dictionary associates open source with free. So im tired of people wanting a "FREE: alternative. im not complaining about open source you pay for. Zoul wont pay for open source either.
I dont have a problem with developers using open source. Its the people who DONT DEVELOPE. People who just use it bwcause its free and dont put nothing back into it. Open source is good but i cant consider anything open you havae to pay to for. thats just me. i dont care technically waht open source is. EVERYBODY IS TALKING ABOUT FREE. thats what the vids are about. the free side of open source.
what i was after is i saw the argument talking about developers not getting paid or getting paid. more than not open source developers get paid, the problem is many only see the retail side of things only and not the B2B. I as a developer wanted to point that out as I use both open source and non and get paid for both.
no it dont mean free but thats what i mean when i say open source. All free stuff is open source mostly so when i say open source i mean free. im not being technical. its just how i see it. people like zoul want free stuff. they dont care if its open source. they just want free
The cruicial part where programers are striking is:
- they want to reuse the code the way they want
- they want to be payed for writing the code
So, charge for work. Dont charge for result. Or set your result a one-time collective price, which, once payed by community, is released opensource.
I mean human work is always needed to be charged, or there would be no point in programming.
Reselling the code itself however very stupid - that was the starting point for patents and DRM.
lin545 1 year ago
Its actually pretty easy:
Freeware: closed source, proprietary, copyright, free distribution
Opensource: open source, proprietary, copyright, free distribution
Free software: open source, open licensing, copyleft, free distribution
BSD: open source, open licensing, almost zero copyright(steal, steal, steal), free distribution
Public Domain: absence of any license.
lin545 1 year ago
You are confusing Free Software with Freeware. Free Software is about the freedom to run, copy, distribute, sell, study, change, and improve, the software. Freeware is gratis software, free of charge software. So "Open Source" does equal "Free Software" but it does not equal "Freeware". In actuality, most "Open Source" software is Free Software (it even says so in the license, the GPL is a Free Software license NOT an Open Source license), Free Software pre-dates Open Source.
TheJakeDTH 1 year ago
@TheJakeDTH no i do not believe i am confusing he issue, there is free as in freedom and free as in free of charge, have a look at my "Open Source & Free software" video
mrbit10 1 year ago
Approval!!!
Robot5sl 2 years ago
Atleast is opensource FAAAAAAR more open then closed source...
Go Opensource !
jeroeniskoning 2 years ago
open source was originally called free software, but was changed because buisness' assosiated free with crappy, cheap, ect. I know what u mean and pretty much all open source software used the gpl which means that it has to be free "cost wise" and people must be able to modd it. and yes OSX has some open source parts but the OS as a whole is closed so it dont count.
Imprezaman555 3 years ago
XNU is not a hybrid of BSD and MACH. The kernel is MACH implemented in the fashion of a monolithic kernel (MACH really is a micro kernel). The BSD part manages user processes and resources. BSD interacts with the XNU kernel through an API written by apple.
Open source is mean free. If you apply restrictions to code that I can download then it is OPEN. Read up on openbsd and I think that is the true definition of OPEN source. If you apply restrictions to code, it is AVAILABLE source, not open.
pcfxer 2 years ago
The gpl doesn't require that the software be free "cost wise." In fact, the gpl prohibits that requirement. The gpl does, however, make selling gpl'd software highly unprofitable.
somethings90 2 years ago
well, you can have completely free program from source code :P ! I mean, you can pay for RedHat or get source code and make a free legal iso out of it, another example is Xchat (windows) it's not for free, but you can get source code and compile it yourself (but linux's is for free)
opens-source means free... Mac open-sourced SOME parts, which made it not free ;)
13thpersoncomedy 3 years ago
Ich habe dieses Video gefunden, als ich nach Apple FreeBSD gesucht habe und es ist das beste von allen!
Peterle07 4 years ago
Ich danke Ihnen, und danke für den Kommentar
mrbit10 4 years ago
Most programers have a donation program which I think is great. That give the feel & the choice to reward the programer. I would personally invest more on developers than the commercials. Downside of this like you mentioned is the slight focus of some about the developping...
einc70 4 years ago
A controversy maybe about the license part having someone use an original open source program mend it and create commercial plugins (eg MSU plugins for virtualdub) they created commercial paid plugins for companies. Don't know how the licence guards people taking advantage off of this type of open source. May be you know more about the legal part...
einc70 4 years ago
I personally think open source is great seeing from someone who search a program he doesn't want spend money on. And who wouldn't? This is proposed mine as well use it.
einc70 4 years ago
i thought open source was free i guess i was wrong well thanks for the info
Caboose2321 4 years ago
Not to correct you, I really enjoy your videos, but isn't the Kernel inside OSX XNU? It does use code from the BSD kernel but they're fundamentally different.
Keep up the good work :).
netytan 4 years ago
yep you are correct, if you look at the very first comment, i noticed that I left out the mach kernel in the vid, so i added it as a comment. freebsd along with the mach kernel make XNU. I just wanted to show the open source part of the kernel rooting from bsd to apple's own. Thanks for the comment :)
mrbit10 4 years ago
I'm just going to say this. Thanks to the Microsoft Anti-trust case that Microsoft was found guilty of Microsoft has to give away half of there source code of Microsoft Office to open source and Microsoft is not aloud to get any money off the Office open source. That means with OpenOffice that uses this source code don't owe Microsoft anything. ;)
thisithis 4 years ago
your taking me out of cantext mrbit. i dont care technically what open source is. 80 percent of the world think Free when they see open source. Your splitting hairs here dude. watch wadeabys vid on linux. His definition reads about it being free etc. to encourage development. not everyone wants to share there stuff. IM TALKING ABOUT FREE STUFF. i consider anything you have to pay for not open source. how is it open if you have to pay for it?
emeek77 4 years ago
this is not directed at any person but the use and open source as free. It is one thing to argue people wanting everything for free and another to always call it open source. As a developer I can tell you that many, many times open source leads to getting paid.
mrbit10 4 years ago
look up the definition in the dictionary of open source. The MAIN part of open source is Free. Thats the whole point. Some open source is not free but when open source is spoken off, free comes to mind. Even the dictionary associates open source with free. So im tired of people wanting a "FREE: alternative. im not complaining about open source you pay for. Zoul wont pay for open source either.
emeek77 4 years ago
I dont have a problem with developers using open source. Its the people who DONT DEVELOPE. People who just use it bwcause its free and dont put nothing back into it. Open source is good but i cant consider anything open you havae to pay to for. thats just me. i dont care technically waht open source is. EVERYBODY IS TALKING ABOUT FREE. thats what the vids are about. the free side of open source.
emeek77 4 years ago
what i was after is i saw the argument talking about developers not getting paid or getting paid. more than not open source developers get paid, the problem is many only see the retail side of things only and not the B2B. I as a developer wanted to point that out as I use both open source and non and get paid for both.
mrbit10 4 years ago
no it dont mean free but thats what i mean when i say open source. All free stuff is open source mostly so when i say open source i mean free. im not being technical. its just how i see it. people like zoul want free stuff. they dont care if its open source. they just want free
emeek77 4 years ago
No I dont. You are just a character attacking coward.
zoulkyud 4 years ago
Nice explanation!
sunnz 4 years ago
it is also based on the mach kernel as well.
mrbit10 4 years ago