Ragavan Srinivasan wrote:
[snip]
"Open Source" terminology is more troublesome than what the OSI can handle ;)
Someone at ILUGC pointed to the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/09/19/microsoft.program.ap/index.html
"Microsoft opens up code program"
is not the same as
"Microsoft frees up program code"
"Open Source" is an hopeless expression that cannot legally, correctly or directly distinguish free from non-free software, without elaborate and contrived definitions. Of course, we cannot expect OSI people to abandon their "Open Source" terminology this evening, but they would have to write long essays why MS is not "Open Source", and hope OSI thinks of some other better expression . Have fun :)
"Free Software" is without ambiguity or overapplicability: http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-November/001255.html http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-November/001261.html
Dear All,
being new to this '/Free/' world and following the debate between Mr.Sasi and Mr. Raman, I am unable to find answers to a few questions (about the movement). Accepted I have not tried too hard to search the net for answers. I'd appreciate if anyone answers, but its ok even otherwise.
1. /Free Software/ implies that the software is open for anyone and everyone, right from its conceptual phase all through its life-cycle.
Its just like a person saying "Hey, I got this idea and Im trying to build this system, any one interested to lend a hand?". If someone is interested, they either team up with the original thinker or (if the system is still in conceptual phase) start developing on their own but leave the latest progress at a common place for anyone to see/modify/(delete?) :-) . Once the work reaches a stage where is can stand out, it is put for the public (probably only see/modify/download).
All through these phases, not a single person gains anything in terms of money (Im not in favor of minting money, per se). So, our professional satisfaction apart, how will this benifit a common programmer/software developer? Im afraid I have not understood how companies are expected to survive if they cannot charge for the efforts put in, in order to make the software qualified as Free Software. So, it is only the companies who develop custom solutions to other firms (just because the other firms cannot do it on their own either due to lack of in-house expertise or facilities) that can charge for the software.
Writing the above lines I feel, A company developing custom software for clients (and charging for the same), can in-turn contribute a part of their profits to fund developers working on free software. In turn the company can simply use the free s/w developed by these developers to develop their own s/w for customers. Is this the essence of Free Software in a nut shell?
Regards, Sriharsha.
Ramanraj K wrote:
Ragavan Srinivasan wrote:
[snip]
"Open Source" terminology is more troublesome than what the OSI can handle ;)
Someone at ILUGC pointed to the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/09/19/microsoft.program.ap/index.html
"Microsoft opens up code program"
is not the same as
"Microsoft frees up program code"
"Open Source" is an hopeless expression that cannot legally, correctly or directly distinguish free from non-free software, without elaborate and contrived definitions. Of course, we cannot expect OSI people to abandon their "Open Source" terminology this evening, but they would have to write long essays why MS is not "Open Source", and hope OSI thinks of some other better expression . Have fun :)
"Free Software" is without ambiguity or overapplicability: http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-November/001255.html http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-November/001261.html
Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
Ramanraj K wrote:
"Free Software" is without ambiguity or overapplicability:
Without ambiguity? You have taken a very common english word and added special meaning to it, and you call it unambiguous?
Why then do you always have to qualify it in front of new people by saying "free as in freedom, and not as in beer!"?
The whole english culture has attached the meaning to the word "free" as to mean, "available without strings". And regardless of how noble the intentions of the "strings" in Free Software, it still is inconsistent with the common usage of the word "free".
In the real world "Free" != "freedom" .. in the semantic sense. - We Indians fought for *freedom* - We got CDs for free.
For goodness sake dont say that the term "Free Software" is unambiguous. It is anything but that. Call it "Freedom Software" or "People's Software" or "Software for the masses". Else you will spend all your life trying to convince people that you want to change the meaning of the word in Oxford dictionary.
- Sandip
Ramanraj K wrote:
"Free Software" is without ambiguity or overapplicability:
Without ambiguity? You have taken a very common english word and added special meaning to it, and you call it unambiguous?
Agreed. The term "Free" is indeed ambiguous. But "Open Source" is worse. Of course., talking in the semantic sense "Open Source" is not as ambiguous., but the way the masses are taking it.. it is indeed a ambiguous term. When you hear the term "Open Source Software", you get to think of Software that you cat get the Source of. The "Source Code" may be not shareable. May not be modifyable. The program/source may be under restrictive licenses. But still in a literal semantic sense, it is open source. This ambiguity is used by many corporates to confuse the public. I've seen this happen.
When we say Free Software, it of course causes a ambiguity where the masses think it is Free (in price) Software. But the damage caused to the understanding of the ideals is not as bad as that in Open Source. The term "Free", is unambiguous because some monopolistic corporate cannot put any other ruleset other than of the Free Software definition and claim his software to be Free Software (to a novice who is uninformed).
Cheers, Joe
Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
Ramanraj K wrote:
"Free Software" is without ambiguity or overapplicability:
Without ambiguity? You have taken a very common english word and added special meaning to it, and you call it unambiguous?
Free Software is based on copyright law. By default, the author of a computer program has absolute copyright over his work. An author who releases his computer program under the GPL or like free license essentially releases his work as free software under the terms of the GPL. Such authors openly declare:
<quote> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. </quote>
The animadversion that free software is not free is associated with these lines in the terms of the GPL:
<quote> You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. </quote>
Obviously, these terms have nothing to do with royalty or license fees which is the rule in the case of non-free software, and essentially the software released under the GPL is given away free by the author.
If finding fault with the generous dispositions made by authors under the terms of the GPL is a pastime or a big joke for a few, we need to be least concerned about it.
AFAIK, there are no legal ambiguities in the GPL.
Why then do you always have to qualify it in front of new people by saying "free as in freedom, and not as in beer!"?
RMS has been trying to make the legal distinction more clear with those words, which I am afraid, may not be well from here. Probably the analogy helps people familiar with the "free beer" culture to understand the legal implication better, which does not in any way alter the terms of the GPL.
The whole english culture has attached the meaning to the word "free" as to mean, "available without strings". And regardless of how noble the intentions of the "strings" in Free Software, it still is inconsistent with the common usage of the word "free".
We don't go by what "English culture" has in store, but what the terms in the GPL actually express.
In the real world "Free" != "freedom" .. in the semantic sense.
- We Indians fought for *freedom*
- We got CDs for free.
Copyright deals with the computer program per se, and many confuse this with the various mediums through which computer programs could be transmitted. The computer program per se is free without royalty or license fees, and the GPL only clarifies that fees may be charged for providing warranty or for the act of copying that has nothing to do with the copyright for the computer program.
For goodness sake dont say that the term "Free Software" is unambiguous. It is anything but that. Call it "Freedom Software" or "People's Software" or "Software for the masses". Else you will spend all your life trying to convince people that you want to change the meaning of the word in Oxford dictionary.
To a legally trained mind, "Free Software" in the light of the GPL and Copyright Law should make sense without much difficulty.
To finish this thread, please know that it is optional under copyright law to disclose the source code for computer programs. Please understand that the source code for non-free computer programs could be published like books are published, and yet be protected by copyright. In short, even non-free programs could be open source, without being free in any sense of the word. That is why "Open Source" is an hopeless expression, in the light of copyright law, but "Free Software" could be used aptly without ambiguity or overapplicability.
-
Joe Steeve -
Ramanraj K -
Sandip Bhattacharya -
Sriharsha Vedurmudi