[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again



On Wednesday 30 September 2015 18:23:21 Doug wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> /snip/
>
> > The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter.
> >
> > But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different.
> > The one is about a more efficient software production model, the other
> > about the user's rights.
> >
> > But such "spirit" things are difficult to grasp at times :-)
> >
> > In practice, and technically, most Open Source software is Free, and all
> > Free Software is Open Source. But watch those folks in a corporate
> > environment awkwardly avoiding the F word -- or read Bruce Perens, one
> > of those who coined Open Source writing that in hindsight it may have
> > been a mistake to realize that the people behind those flavors are
> > quite different.
>
> This whole (OT) discussion perverts the meaning of the word "free."*
> In common usage, the word "free" means you do not have to pay money for it.
>
> Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is NOT
> open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free software
> which is not open source that probably most users of Linux are using today.
> They[re _free_ becasue you didn't have to pay for it. simple as that.
>
> --doug
>
> * The American Heritage Dictionary shows "free" first in regard to
> slavery, or arrest, etc. It goes on to discuss politics and free vs.
> dictatorship. It eventually gets to "costing nothing; gratuitous:
> _a free pass." All of these are certainly in common usage, but the
> idea of "free" applying to software that one may share seems to be
> unique to some Linux users. If you were to ask the average American
> what his first definition of "free" would be, I would bet that he'd
> say, "You don't have to pay for it."

They are open source, surely.

Lisi


Reply to: