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

[William Abernathy <william@inch.com>]

Folks, please go to the Free Software Foundation, and check out their 
definition of Free Software 
(http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Then go to the Open Source 
Initiative, and check out their definition of Open Source Software 
(http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html).

Free Software is in general use in the free/open source world to refer 
to software that meets the FSFs "four freedoms" criteria. Open Source 
generally refers to software that meets the nine criteria enumerated by 
the Open Source Initiative as the Open Source Definition.

The BSD/MIT/X11 style of license allows anyone to do anything with the 
code, even call it their own and sell it as a closed-source product. The 
Gnu General Public License requires that code be redistributed (selling 
it is fine) only if 100% of the source is made available for free. The 
Netscape/Mozilla license tries to split the difference, requiring free 
redistribution of source code, but permitting integration with some 
secret code. There are other free/open as well, but this isn't the 
appropriate time or place to discuss them.

The upshot of all this is that there's more than one way of licensing 
source-available software, and we are the richer for the variety. 
Apache, for instance, is BSD licensed, as are the many BSD operating 
systems. Linux, and countless apps that ride along with it in the GNU 
operating environment, are GPL. There are benefits and drawbacks to each 
licensing and distribution model.

As advocates for open computing in schools, we must not descend into 
counterproductive licensing wars on this list. As end users, rather than 
programmers, the vast majority of educational users will never be 
affected by the strictures of these licenses, knowing only their 
benefits. If our first obligation is to education, we should remain 
scrupulously agnostic on the various licenses, and their inclusion in 
our mission. If it's free or open sourced, it should be within our 
ambit, provided its license meets either the Free or Open Source definition.

As for our choice of verbiage, I can only speak for myself as a native 
speaker of American English. To avoid confusion, I usually refer 
generically to the source-available software in question as 
"source-available software", "Free or Open Source Software" or 
"Free/Open Source Software." They're all a mouthful, but prevent 
Stallman explosions, and seem to make other license warriors happy as 
well. They carry with them the burden of having to explain one's self, 
but the topic bears explanation.

My two cents, and back into lurk mode.

--William Abernathy

Jeremy C. Reed wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Cameron Miller wrote:
> 
> 
>>>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).
>>>
> 
>>My understanding is the opposite.  Source code under the GPL garuntees
>>the ability to peer review and helps to keep open standards open.  All
>>programmers, good or bad, have access to the code and thus the
>>underlying ideas behind it.
>>
> 
> Yes, everyone has access, but many companies can't use it because it will
> taint their code.
> 
> Remember that many programmers and their families's livelihoods are based
> on the money they make from their software code; if it was to have GPL'd
> code integrated into it, then their software (by definition) would all be
> open sourced. And lately, we have seen many software developing companies
> trying to make money on just open source fail.
> 
> 
>> This is the reason for the GPL, to ensure
>>the availability of the source code and to help ensure the sharing of
>>it's ideas.
>>
> 
> Yes, the GPL is good at making the code available. But it only helps with
> the sharing of ideas to those who also will continue to make the code
> available (which often limits many companies that restrict what they make
> available).
> 
> 
>> If you wish to use code which is under the GPL for a
>>commercial product then you also have to share.
>>
> 
> More than just share, but the software that the GPL'd code was added to
> must be fully made open source. So the commercial product loses its value
> (although commercial support may continue for a while) and the company
> loses money and many programmers may lose their jobs.
> 
> Of course, that is the sad goal of the GPL: "Low-paying organizations do
> poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do
> badly if the high-paying ones are banned." (From the GNU Manifesto.)
> 
> 
>>In this case the GPL
>>discourages those who would use available code to do things like embrace
>>and extend open standards or simply steal someone elses work and pass it
>>off as their own.
>>
> 
> What is wrong with a commercial (without available source) software from
> embracing open standards (such as the TCP/IP stack)?
> 
> Of course, stealing the code is wrong, but other licenses ask for the
> copyright and disclaimers to be retained, but also allow the code to be
> reused without any other limitations.
> 
>    Jeremy C. Reed
> 
> p.s. By the way, I use GPL'd code, public domain code, non-open source
> software, commercial software, etc. And I freely provide my own open
> source code, I maintain and code a commonly used GPL'd product (GPL'd
> before I got to it) and I sell software (the source is not openly
> available).
> 
> 
> 
>