3 ms·
Open source (or should I say, the catchphrase open-source) lets you "see" the source code, but not use it. It's more loose than: Free software (some call it "l
by Mithrandir 16y ago
Open source (or should I say, the catchphrase open-source) lets you "see" the source code, but not use it. It's more loose than:
Free software (some call it "libre") lets you see and use the source code.
Proprietary does not let you do either.
Some software makers call their software "open-source" when it's really free, and some call their software "free" when it's really just "open".
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- gaius 16y agoBy that definition SAP is open source! Since you get all the ABAP code and can do whatever you want with it, if you buy SAP first...
- cmsj 16y agoI wouldn't agree with "but not use it". I tend to explain the difference as being that Open Source places the freedom of people first (e.g. with a BSD licence, developers have freedom to do anything with a piece of code) and Free Software places the freedom of software first. (I don't project any moral judgement of either of these goals, I think they both have their place. Also hi! ;)
- FooBarWidget 16y agoThat's nonsense. Open source is defined by the Open Source Definition as published by the OSI. http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Read section 3, Derived Works. Putting a source tarball online with a license that says "you can read this source but you can't do anything else with it" doesn't make it open source.
- Mithrandir 16y agoI was talking about the catchphrase "open-source", not what the OSI talks about. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html