4 ms·
From the policy (linked from the article): Open source software means that the underlying source code is not copyrighted and therefore available free of charge
by lmkg 17y ago
From the policy (linked from the article): Open source software means that the underlying source code is not copyrighted and therefore available free of charge to read, modify, and build upon. Isn't this factually incorrect? I thought that, say, GPL was technically a type of copyright.
- jpwatts 17y agoThat's most definitely incorrect. And it's not just a technicality; copyright law is the legal foundation of free/open source software.
- mattwdelong 17y agoYou can also charge for open source software. Also, I believe if you find a free piece of open source software that is useful to you, one that comes free as in free beer, then you should be donating to the developer/s; even if its just enough to buy them a beer. Show the developer a little gratitude.
- davidw 17y agoIf you don't feel like going that far, even a thank you note is really appreciated.
- jcl 17y agoGPL is not a "type of copyright"; it's a license that derives its power from copyright. The same is true of pretty much any license that tries to limit what you can do -- which includes most open source licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache). There are also open source "licenses" that essentially place the code in the public domain. These are the only ones that fit the article's description.
- LogicHoleFlaw 17y agoUnfortunately the public domain concept is not recognized in all countries. If you wish for your software to be truly available in these nations you will still need to apply some sort of copyright license, no matter how liberal.
- nzmsv 17y agoEven open-source software has a potential problem in some countries. For example, while OSS is often received free of charge, the government can argue that the user still got an item of value. So they have to pay taxes on this "gift".