News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Cisco's Open Source H.264 Codec. Parent comment

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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cisco's Open Source H.264 Codec by LukeShu on Thursday December 12, 2013 @09:08PM (#6898650)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
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"?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cisco's Open Source H.264 Codec by wmf on Thursday December 12, 2013 @10:25PM (#6898907)
Usually that's called shared source.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]