5 ms·

> Also note that Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code because there's no reason that you can’t other than piracy concerns, and

by Flimm 9y ago

> Also note that Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code because there's no reason that you can’t other than piracy concerns, and due to the increased legal scrutiny corporations tend not to pirate products, unlike the general public. Yes, Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code, but if the code is open source, other people will be able to distribute it free of charge or for a fee, that is not at all illegal or piracy! Open source has always meant this. Let me quote from the Open Source Definition, by the Open Source Initiative, the only authority on what constitutes open source: > 1. Free Redistribution > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. All of the open source licenses listed on osi.org allow users to redistribute the software free of charge.

Jedd 9y ago
An abundance of reasons for why rms was right when he penned: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- occultist_throw 9y ago
  The longer I go in computing, the more I see that Stallman was, and is right. Last month, I joined the FSF. I find that great parts of my livelihood are thanks in part to his efforts in computing, law, and rights.
  - youdontknowtho 9y ago
    I disagree. The majority of money that generated the electronic boom were from defense spending. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I personally don't find what he is doing to be effective in a sense larger than the personal interest of a user of a device that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the nuclear state. I mean to say, is Raytheon's freedom to use a compiler as important as individual freedom? There are some logical gaps there to me. I can see where people would disagree with me, and I personally like the man. I've met him...it's a weird story, but I think he's a really cool person. I just don't necessarily agree with him.
    - uoaei 9y ago
      It seems you are approaching this topic from the perspective that technological progress is of most value. For others, ethical progress--that is, technological progress that does not impede on human rights--is of higher value than technological progress alone. >[I]s Raytheon's freedom to use a compiler as important as individual freedom? "As important" is a distraction: comparing degrees of importance with respect to rights and freedoms will always be a rabbit hole into which you will get lost as you differentiate infinitesimal cases in context. Freedom is freedom, and if humans are allowed that, that is enough.
b4ux1t3 9y ago
Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily. It literally just means that the code is available for inspection. Paid-for open source software isn't a new thing. You're thinking of _free_ open source software. While I'm not a huge FOSS-head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just "open source". It's all in the licensing. I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit your needs. In fact, a lot of licenses on older software projects allowed for exactly that. I could also release a license that says that you can only redistribute my code if you haven't purchased it, but if you have purchased it, you're not allowed to redistribute it. Pointless? Yeah, probably. But that's still a valid license. Anything goes, as long as you can come up with the proper legalese to put in the license. EDIT: I get it, some people support OSI's definitions, some FSF's, and apparently sharing the opinion of one has angered the supporters of the other. A lot of this is subjective, and I know that. I'd appreciate it if you discussed and voted accordingly.
- CrystalGamma 9y ago
  If you can look at, but not redistribute, freely, it is called 'shared source'. Open Source really is about free redistribution. And the difference to Free Software is mostly about the stance on community and lock-in.
  - bfred_it 9y ago
    "Open source" is very generic, it literally just means "Not closed/private source." Nothing else about redistribution and restrictions is implied. For that there are specific licenses, which the article didn't mention.
    - Vendan 9y ago
      It's not open source unless it's an open source license, and it's not an open source license unless it meets https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated. You are referring to "source available". Please stop conflating the two.

by Flimm 9y ago

Jedd 9y ago

An abundance of reasons for why rms was right when he penned: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

occultist_throw 9y ago
The longer I go in computing, the more I see that Stallman was, and is right. Last month, I joined the FSF. I find that great parts of my livelihood are thanks in part to his efforts in computing, law, and rights.
- youdontknowtho 9y ago
  I disagree. The majority of money that generated the electronic boom were from defense spending. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I personally don't find what he is doing to be effective in a sense larger than the personal interest of a user of a device that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the nuclear state. I mean to say, is Raytheon's freedom to use a compiler as important as individual freedom? There are some logical gaps there to me. I can see where people would disagree with me, and I personally like the man. I've met him...it's a weird story, but I think he's a really cool person. I just don't necessarily agree with him.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    It seems you are approaching this topic from the perspective that technological progress is of most value. For others, ethical progress--that is, technological progress that does not impede on human rights--is of higher value than technological progress alone. >[I]s Raytheon's freedom to use a compiler as important as individual freedom? "As important" is a distraction: comparing degrees of importance with respect to rights and freedoms will always be a rabbit hole into which you will get lost as you differentiate infinitesimal cases in context. Freedom is freedom, and if humans are allowed that, that is enough.

b4ux1t3 9y ago

Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily. It literally just means that the code is available for inspection. Paid-for open source software isn't a new thing. You're thinking of _free_ open source software. While I'm not a huge FOSS-head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just "open source". It's all in the licensing. I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit your needs. In fact, a lot of licenses on older software projects allowed for exactly that. I could also release a license that says that you can only redistribute my code if you haven't purchased it, but if you have purchased it, you're not allowed to redistribute it. Pointless? Yeah, probably. But that's still a valid license. Anything goes, as long as you can come up with the proper legalese to put in the license. EDIT: I get it, some people support OSI's definitions, some FSF's, and apparently sharing the opinion of one has angered the supporters of the other. A lot of this is subjective, and I know that. I'd appreciate it if you discussed and voted accordingly.

CrystalGamma 9y ago
If you can look at, but not redistribute, freely, it is called 'shared source'. Open Source really is about free redistribution. And the difference to Free Software is mostly about the stance on community and lock-in.
- bfred_it 9y ago
  "Open source" is very generic, it literally just means "Not closed/private source." Nothing else about redistribution and restrictions is implied. For that there are specific licenses, which the article didn't mention.
  - Vendan 9y ago
    It's not open source unless it's an open source license, and it's not an open source license unless it meets https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated. You are referring to "source available". Please stop conflating the two.