Open Source Movement vs. Free Software

From 'RevolutionOS, the Linux story', a documentairy about Linux and Open Source

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Linux
• open
• source
• code
• software

[schestowitz]

These are very different concepts. Freedom is not the same as openness. You can abuse someone openly.

[someman7]

No! Free software (with a capital F) is NOT freeware. It doesn't mean a program is free, in fact, distribution can cost you (I think). Free software is a term coined by Richard Stallman, and as the vid says, Open Source is just the name to present it to buisness men. But the thing is, OS movement, and FSF have different agendas. The difference being that FSF also focuses on the community (it fights DRM, for example), while OS movement cares (only) for the economical advantages of FOSS.

[ZenCartEasyHelp]

Great video! Set up your ecommerce business for free with our Easy Help Zen Cart Tutorials:

[JonJahren]

@cheetah100 If I release my software under an open source but restrictive license, does the OSI have the authority to force me to not call my software open source?

[JonJahren]

@cheetah100 I never claimed OSI has approved any non-free OSS license. I'm just saying they exist. I'm going to say this again: You can claim to be open source, and still not be free software. This isn't wrong or incorrect, it's a fact. Just because OSI might not approve your license doesn't mean it's not 'open source'. If you want an example though: APSL1.

[cheetah100]

@JonJahren Open Source as defined by the creators of the term at OSI developed a precise definition that requires the same freedoms as the Free Software Foundation. You may object to the use of the term "Open Source", but please don't try to change the meaning of the term.

[cheetah100]

@JonJahren Interesting accusation, but lacking in detail. What OSI approved license are we talking about? The whole Free vs Open discussion is really a misunderstanding. Open Source == Free People. Having the source code to software openly available gives YOU freedom to use, distribute, copy and modify. The software itself is not the object of the emancipation.

[JonJahren]

@GranitW Not quite right.. Open Source does not have to be free software, because of copyright I can show you the code but not permit you to redistribute it or redistribute changes. That's a core difference between open source and free software.

[JonJahren]

@cheetah100 Be that as it may, there's still the problem that focusing on "open source" has left us with a variety of open source licenses where the code isn't free. You can have non-free open source, but you can't have non-open source free software. I think this is a good example where sticking to your guns would have made advancement slower, but ultimately would've matched their agenda more accurately.

[cheetah100]

@noumman Short answer is yes. You are free to use open source in business, and you don't have to pay for software licenses. However there is still support and training which you need to think about - exactly the same as with commercial software.

[noumman]

are open source softwares free for commercial use as well, i.e if i use them for my company's computer?