Re:Cisco's Open Source H.264 Codec
by sliverstorm on Thursday December 12, 2013 @07:53PM
(#6898409)
Open source does not mean free to build & use. It means open source.
Open source means these things: http://opensource.org/osd
"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"
Without being able to build and use it, the "derived works" section can't be met.
Re:Cisco's Open Source H.264 Codec
by sliverstorm on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:11PM
(#6898853)
That reads more like the GPL than a definition of what open source means. What, then, do you call code that provides the source but does not allow you free distribution of both the source & binaries? "The source is open but it's not open source"?
Usually that's called shared source.
Re:Cisco's Open Source H.264 Codec
by technomancy on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:37PM
(#6898939)
That's exactly what I'm saying; open source misses the point. This is a free software issue.
If you think that addresses the issues at play, you haven't been paying attention to both sides of the debate.