Re:Canonical, Ltd. On Record: Seeking Open Core
by cmsj on Sunday October 17, 2010 @03:44PM
(#1801215)
I wouldn't agree with "but not use it".
I tend to explain the difference as being that Open Source places the freedom of people first (e.g. with a BSD licence, developers have freedom to do anything with a piece of code) and Free Software places the freedom of software first.
(I don't project any moral judgement of either of these goals, I think they both have their place. Also hi! ;)
Re:Canonical, Ltd. On Record: Seeking Open Core
by FooBarWidget on Sunday October 17, 2010 @03:46PM
(#1801218)
That's nonsense. Open source is defined by the Open Source Definition as published by the OSI. http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
Read section 3, Derived Works.
Putting a source tarball online with a license that says "you can read this source but you can't do anything else with it" doesn't make it open source.
Re:Canonical, Ltd. On Record: Seeking Open Core
by Mithrandir on Sunday October 17, 2010 @03:57PM
(#1801248)
I was talking about the catchphrase "open-source", not what the OSI talks about.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
Free software (some call it "libre") lets you see and use the source code.
Proprietary does not let you do either.
Some software makers call their software "open-source" when it's really free, and some call their software "free" when it's really just "open".
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html