Growl fork maintainer banned from Growl mailinglist after fixing bugs

Post by waitwhat » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 11:42 AM UTC

cromulent wrote: post #27

rmc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source. Not really. It depends on the exact licence but just about every 'open source' licence, and the Open Source Definition from the OSI and the Free Software Defintion from the FSF will requite that the licence lets the people who get the software to be allowed to redistribute it. Just look at the link…

The OSI was founded in 1998, but companies such as SAP provided their ERP systems with full readable source code much earlier than that, and it was called "open source" (as opposed to "closed source" which was more common with COTS). However, it is explicitly forbidden in the licence to re-sell it or re-distribute it. The term pre-dates the organisation's re-definition of it for their own purposes.

Post by cousin_it » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 11:55 AM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #21

The OSS community has always had an uneasy tension between a) for-profit enterprise which provides most of the man-power and b) anti-commercial poor adolescents of all ages who simultaneously think that contributing to OSS is a moral obligation and that the license and copyright assignment they fetishize includes a "All contributors will be made happy despite their total lack of business sense" clause, somewhere.

Post by mapleoin » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 12:05 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #30

waitwhat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Open Source" [...] just means you can view the source. No. See, for example, the Open Source Definition [1] by the Open Source Initiative [2] which opens with the statement "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Wikipedia states that their "definition is widely recognized as the standard or de facto definition." [3] You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to s…

You are right, very good points. So maybe I was wrong but I dealt with open source earlier than the OSI came up with the definition. What they call "Open Source" is more "Free (as in freedom, libre) Software" to me. I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well... open source :) What's the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" as coined by OSI?

Post by dalke » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 12:29 PM UTC

eis wrote: post #30

waitwhat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Open Source" [...] just means you can view the source. No. See, for example, the Open Source Definition [1] by the Open Source Initiative [2] which opens with the statement "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Wikipedia states that their "definition is widely recognized as the standard or de facto definition." [3] You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to s…

You are right, very good points. So maybe I was wrong but I dealt with open source earlier than the OSI came up with the definition. What they call "Open Source" is more "Free (as in freedom, libre) Software" to me. I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well... open source :) What's the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" as coined by OSI?

Post by inimino » Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 12:33 PM UTC

mapleoin wrote: post #35

eis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, very good points. So maybe I was wrong but I dealt with open source earlier than the OSI came up with the definition. What they call "Open Source" is more "Free (as in freedom, libre) Software" to me. I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well... open source :) What's the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" as coined by OSI?

APL/MIT/BSD/GPL are open source. GPL is the only free software though.