3 ms·

> We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. No, even stallman approves of s

> We already have a category for "corporate manufacturing partners can pay to access the source" - that's proprietary software. No, even stallman approves of selling source code. Free software and open source have never been about price, it's about being able to get the source: > Commercial software is software being developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software. “Commercial” and “proprietary” are not the same thing! Most commercial software is proprietary, but there is commercial free software, and there is noncommercial nonfree software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

mycroftiv 16y ago
You are misconstruing my statements and ignoring the context. I am well aware that you can sell free software for money. However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here, and the general issue of charging money for software is not relevant. If you are linking and quoting from gnu, you are surely aware that free software is about the user of the software being able to access the source code, modify it, and redistribute it. None of these freedoms (which are also part of the open source definition) are currently given to purchasers of Honeycomb tablets. Your attempt to conflate the issue of access to source code by users with that of a distributor charging a price for software is either disingenuous or the result of a misunderstanding.
- Schmidt 16y ago
  But, Android (except for the kernel) isn't free software, it's mainly Apache and BSD licensed, neither of these licenses requires source to distributed for compliance. Google is doing something bad, but it is not against the license.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    He never said that it was illegal, just that it's wrong (while continuing to claim that Android is "open").
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  Even Stallman said in several interviews that it was ok to make money that way, release a free/open version of your software and charge for the latest version by making it proprietary but just for a few months/years before releasing it as free/open too (I'll let you google the interviews). So I take it you're either more extreme than stallman or you're just being disingenuous to make a point against google, but if you're just more extreme than stallman, do you use gnewsense or something on your pc? Thought so.

mycroftiv 16y ago

You are misconstruing my statements and ignoring the context. I am well aware that you can sell free software for money. However, if I purchase a Xoom with Honeycomb, I have been given a copy of the Android software, and I will not be given a copy of the source code if I request it. That is the issue here, and the general issue of charging money for software is not relevant. If you are linking and quoting from gnu, you are surely aware that free software is about the user of the software being able to access the source code, modify it, and redistribute it. None of these freedoms (which are also part of the open source definition) are currently given to purchasers of Honeycomb tablets. Your attempt to conflate the issue of access to source code by users with that of a distributor charging a price for software is either disingenuous or the result of a misunderstanding.

Schmidt 16y ago
But, Android (except for the kernel) isn't free software, it's mainly Apache and BSD licensed, neither of these licenses requires source to distributed for compliance. Google is doing something bad, but it is not against the license.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  He never said that it was illegal, just that it's wrong (while continuing to claim that Android is "open").
patrickaljord 16y ago
Even Stallman said in several interviews that it was ok to make money that way, release a free/open version of your software and charge for the latest version by making it proprietary but just for a few months/years before releasing it as free/open too (I'll let you google the interviews). So I take it you're either more extreme than stallman or you're just being disingenuous to make a point against google, but if you're just more extreme than stallman, do you use gnewsense or something on your pc? Thought so.