4 ms·

Open source can have as restrictive a license as you want, the point is that the source can be reviewed and improved by anyone, which leads to a higher quality

Open source can have as restrictive a license as you want, the point is that the source can be reviewed and improved by anyone, which leads to a higher quality product. Free software requires a permisive lisence, as the point is to protect the user's freedoms. Unfourtuantly, in practice both types of open source software look the same, so the labels get confused.

frabcus 14y ago
gizmo686 - strange definition of "open source", sounds like one Microsoft would use. The definition I've been using for over a decade is the one from the Open Source Initiative http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
- sp332 14y ago
  The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. So the terms of the original software might restrict creation or distribution of binaries, or anything else.
- jpitz 14y ago
  Actually, the OSI has approved two of Microsoft's licenses. http://opensource.org/node/207 http://opensource.org/node/207
- gizmo686 14y ago
  I have a feeling we just walked into a political minefield. Anyway, My understanding of the words is based largely on GNU [1][2]. The main point brought up [1] and [2] is that "free software" is to protect user freedoms, while "open source" software is about quality. In all cases, free software is open source, however, as I explained in my response to notatoad, open source software is not necessarily free, however it almost always is. [1]http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... [2]http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
notatoad 14y ago
>the point is that the source can be reviewed and improved by anyone. Exactly. And therefore it needs a license permissive enough to allow that.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  The license could include provisions forbidding the distribution of the source and object code, and provisions saying that the original owner maintains all rights to their code and your code, and the source code may be used for the sole purpose of contributing improvements back to the original owners. In practice, no one uses that type of license, hence the confusion between free and open source.

frabcus 14y ago

gizmo686 - strange definition of "open source", sounds like one Microsoft would use. The definition I've been using for over a decade is the one from the Open Source Initiative http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd

sp332 14y ago
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. So the terms of the original software might restrict creation or distribution of binaries, or anything else.
jpitz 14y ago
Actually, the OSI has approved two of Microsoft's licenses. http://opensource.org/node/207 http://opensource.org/node/207
gizmo686 14y ago
I have a feeling we just walked into a political minefield. Anyway, My understanding of the words is based largely on GNU [1][2]. The main point brought up [1] and [2] is that "free software" is to protect user freedoms, while "open source" software is about quality. In all cases, free software is open source, however, as I explained in my response to notatoad, open source software is not necessarily free, however it almost always is. [1]http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... [2]http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

notatoad 14y ago

>the point is that the source can be reviewed and improved by anyone. Exactly. And therefore it needs a license permissive enough to allow that.

gizmo686 14y ago
The license could include provisions forbidding the distribution of the source and object code, and provisions saying that the original owner maintains all rights to their code and your code, and the source code may be used for the sole purpose of contributing improvements back to the original owners. In practice, no one uses that type of license, hence the confusion between free and open source.