3 ms·
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 S
by 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 agoThe 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 agoActually, the OSI has approved two of Microsoft's licenses. http://opensource.org/node/207 http://opensource.org/node/207
- gizmo686 14y agoI 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