Re: open source or free software?
Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> writes:
> On 28/08/14 08:16, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 06:05:55PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> "JSHint is open source and will always stay this way."[2]
>>>
>>> "To be honest, I'm getting tired of these not-true-open-source talks.
>>> Out of all things I need to do with JSHint this issue is probably the
>>> least important one."[3]
>>>
>>> Some people feel that the term "open source" should only be used for
>>> software that is also free but I feel that is something that is beyond
>>> anybody's control because "open" is such a generic word.
>> "ajar" would be a better word. Just open and no more? :)
>
>
> The French have "libre" - it has a distinctly different meaning than
> "gratuit". They both translate to "free" in English but in French it is
> less ambiguous what each word means. For example, Acrobat Reader is
> gratuit but Firefox is both gratuit and libre.
>
More and more I'm convinced that the problem with "free" meaning
"gratis" is overstated. If you poll people in the US as to their
perception of "open source," asking them whether it is okay to make a
profit by selling "open source" software that they did not write
themselves, I am confident that the answer will come back majority No. I
suspect the same would be true if we used "libre." The problem we face
isn't a simple language one; it's that in more than one culture,
commercial activity in the sense of selling "someone else's" work is not
expected as a right. The common assumption when hearing about any kind
of sharing under whatever term is that it's okay only as long as it's
noncommercial.
Since the Firefox trademark policy forbids commercial verbatim binary
redistribution, it is also only gratuit.
-john
Reply to: