News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Lessons from last week’s cyberattack. Parent comment

Re:Lessons from last week’s cyberattack by pjmlp on Monday May 15, 2017 @03:05AM (#14339727)
Free software can be closed source, which is why companies love MIT style licenses.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lessons from last week’s cyberattack by pksadiq on Monday May 15, 2017 @04:42AM (#14340073)
> Free software can be closed source...

Eh, Never. Not even for open source. Once the source is closed, it is no longer open source (and neither free software).

For a software to be open source, the user should have a way to obtain the source code legally (That is, a stolen source code won't make a software open source).

For the software to be free software, the user should have the freedom to (modify and) replace the software with the user's version of the software (of course, source code availability is pre-requisite for this).

Say for example, your router, Android phone, TV, Car, or your espresso machine could be running Linux which is open source. You get the source code of those over the Internet or from the vendor on request. But you may not be allowed to change it. So you are always on the mercy of the vendor if something happen (like the one happening now). They are open source, but they are not free software. (GNU [A]GPLv3 enforces this freedom. Some like it, some don't).

A software can be free or non-free based on where the code is run, not just whether you get the source or not.

This is freedom 1 by free software definition:

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish.

See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for more details.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lessons from last week’s cyberattack by cryptarch on Monday May 15, 2017 @03:59AM (#14339921)
I thought MIT wasn't free software as defined by the FSF?

Open source would be the term for that. Free requires end users to receive source, open just allows you to use the source if you have a copy.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lessons from last week’s cyberattack by nailer on Monday May 15, 2017 @05:41AM (#14340306)
Free software is defined by the FSFs list of freedoms and MIT licence certainly provides those freedoms.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lessons from last week’s cyberattack by cryptarch on Monday May 15, 2017 @05:57AM (#14340356)
Fair enough, I got hung up on the lack of guarantees to distribute code alongside compiled applications.

Would you say compiled MIT programs are still "free software" when they don't come with the source code?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lessons from last week’s cyberattack by nailer on Monday May 15, 2017 @06:56AM (#14340609)
Freedom 1 (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) depends on whether the source code is available, not whether the source comes with the binary.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lessons from last week’s cyberattack by pjmlp on Monday May 15, 2017 @04:06AM (#14339938)
Free software is software that doesn't cost any money, hence it is free.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lessons from last week’s cyberattack by Karellen on Monday May 15, 2017 @12:27PM (#14342850)
You're confusing free software[0] with freeware[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lessons from last week’s cyberattack by lucb1e on Monday May 15, 2017 @04:29AM (#14340028)
Although it is often the case that free software (or libre software, or whatever you want to call it) is available at no cost, the term "free software" generally does not refer to the price but to the given freedoms.
[ Parent | on HN ]