Re: [seul-edu] free software / open source

["Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net>]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Tom Annis wrote:

> The Free Software Foundation is also careful to make a
> very important distinction between "commercial" and
> "proprietary" software. "Commercial software is
...

> commercial software is proprietary, but there is
> commercial free software, and there is non-commercial
> non-free software." In plain English, "proprietary"
> software is never "open-source" since you do not have
> free access to the source code. Though the bulk of
> commercial software is proprietary, "commercial"
> software can definitely be open-source. The actual
> price, if any that is charged to acquire the source
> code is irrelevant. It is all about the code and
> nothing but the code.

A lot of people consider GPL'd code or content to be proprietary because
you can't freely reuse it within closed (no source publically available)
software.

GPL'd code is not open for all purposes.

> This is my understanding of the GNU, but I welcome any
> clarifications.

Open source is good for encouraging peer review (which results in improved
performance, usability, stability and security), and, in many cases,
promoting standards. But, because the GPL license discourages many good
programmers from using the code, it sometimes stops the true sharing of
code (or ideas).

   Jeremy C. Reed
   http://www.reedmedia.net/