Re: [seul-edu] free software / open source

[Tom Annis <annis@fullsite.com>]

Hi,
This is a comment on the use of the word "commercial"
to suggest "bad practice".  I think that we as a
community need to be careful about how we use this term
(in the same manner that we are discussing the use of
"free' versus "open-source").

Let's look again at the words of the Free Software
Foundation:

"Free software is software
that comes with permission for
anyone to use, copy, and
distribute, either verbatim or
with modifications, either
gratis or for a fee. In
particular, this means that
source code must be available.
Strictly speaking, "selling"
means trading goods for money.
Selling a copy of a free
program is legitimate, and we
[the Free Software Foundation]
encourage it. However, when
people think of "selling
software", they usually
imagine doing it the way most
companies do it: making the
software proprietary rather
than free. We suggest it is
better to avoid using the term
``selling software'' and
choose some other wording
instead. For example, you
could say ``distributing free
software for a fee''--that is
unambiguous."

The Free Software Foundation is also careful to make a
very important distinction between "commercial" and
"proprietary" software. "Commercial software is
software being developed by a business which aims to
make money from the use of the software. "Commercial''
and ``proprietary'' are not the same thing! Most
commercial software is proprietary, but there is
commercial free software, and there is non-commercial
non-free software." In plain English, "proprietary"
software is never "open-source" since you do not have
free access to the source code. Though the bulk of
commercial software is proprietary, "commercial"
software can definitely be open-source. The actual
price, if any that is charged to acquire the source
code is irrelevant. It is all about the code and
nothing but the code.

The Free Software foundation suggests that people
should "help spread the awareness that commercial free
[open source] software is possible. You can do this by
making an effort not to say ``commercial'' when you
mean ``proprietary.''

This is my understanding of the GNU, but I welcome any
clarifications.
Regards,
--Tom Annis
schoolmation.net


>Paolo Pumilia a écrit :
>>
>>
>>  Originally, there was no difference between the expressions
>>  'free software" and "open source". The latter had been
>>  invented to get rid of the ambiguity in the term 'free'
>>  and to make acceptance of open software by non-technician
>>  people easier.
>>  In short, 'open source' sounded better to many people.
>
>yes, sounds better to English-speaking people, because of this
>ambiguity of the word "free"
>In French(libre/gratuit), in Italian(libero/gratuito), in
>German(frei/kostenlos), etc..., both meanings are covered by two
>different words.
>
>So we do not need to say "open source" for free software.
>
>Moreover, free software actually *has* to do with freedom.
>
>And be very careful : "open source" happens to be used by bigger
>software companies to cover their some of their bad commercial practice
>like using nice people from the developers "community"  to debug their
>commercial software for free... and still taking all licence advantage
>to themselves leaving nothing at all to the nice helping "community" guy
>!
>
>This is one reason why you would better say "free software"
>(of course these bad practice cannot be done with "free software")
>cf
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html#newinnovember
>
>>  Recently somebody claimed there are differences in princple
>>  between the two expressions: 'free software" would stand as
>>  defence of freedom of programmers and users, 'open source'
>>  would merely point out technical/economical advanges of 'free'
>>  programs.
>>
>>  Why should one believe that statement as a matter of fact?
>
>cf above
>
>>
>>  Ideas and principles are no private property of anyone;
>>  i am distrustful when the use of ideas gets restricted by
>>  self-appointed owners; wider acceptance of ideas should be
>  > supported and aknowledged as a sign of their strenght, even
>>  if that produces a slight blurred zone on the borders.
>>
>>  'open source' is perhaps less well defined than 'free software',
>>  since it is real movement. Indeed a drawback of an
>>  _idea in evolution_ is that everybody is tempted to stress those
>>  implications he/she is most interested to; to get the full meaning
>>  of 'open source' one has to catch the reasons of the many
>>  prominent actors at that given moment of history.
>>  As witnessed by many ongoing projects on the web, the
>>  expression 'open source' is used in several new educational,
>>  economical and technical enterprises related to computer science;
>>  moreover it is spreading over unlike cultural contexts;
>>  music, literacture and phylosophy are some examples.
>>  To me, it is obvious that the meaning of 'open source' cannot be
>  > entirely recovered in the OSI (open source initiative) statements;
>  > that is the board in charge to pass new open source licenses.
>  > Open source is rather what lays behind that initiative.
>>
>>  Insisting on the artificial difference in the meaning of
>>  'free software' and 'open source' makes me think the real
>>  difference in elsewhere.
>>
>>  --
>>  Paolo Pumilia
>
>--
>Odile Bénassy                                 http://obenassy.free.fr/
>Protection de l'Innovation contre les Brevets http://swpat.ffii.org/
>95000 signatures contre le brevet logiciel    http://www.noepatents.org/
>     (cf http://www.april.org/articles/faq/faq.html#AEN398)


--