Re: [Fsuk-manchester] open and free software

[Simon Ward]

On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 03:45:10AM -0700, aidy lewis wrote:
> What essentially is the difference between open and free software?

In terms of what you can and can’t do with open and free software, they
are essentially the same thing.

“Open” _could_ mean the source is available for people to examine, but
does not give you any right to use, redistribute or modify it.  It is
generally used to refer to software that does give all of these
freedoms, same as for free software.

Free software comes with some baggage that people don’t like:  A whole
philosophy, a provocative iconic figure with a beard, …  So
they turn to using the “open source” term instead, which has its own
baggage but is somehow more palatable.

Neither “free software” or “open source software” mean that the software
must be copyleft.  Software under the MIT license is both free and open.

> Can we make a comparison of open and closed sourced software where
> with one we cannot read the source-code?

Having access to the source is a requirement for free software, so I’d
say yes.  As I have pointed out, source isn’t the only requirement, so
you can also make other comparisons.

The normal general comparison is free (or “open” if you must) versus
proprietary.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature