Some interesting points I was totally unaware of, so far I didn't distinguish the 2 terms.. Although linux users among us are probably more exposed than me, as a windows user, to these informations.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-sou ... nt.en.html

Technically OpenSource and FreeSoftware do not have many differences. Just "FreeSoftware" also involves philosophical or ethical issues.
I prefer the OpenSource term. "Free" software is confusing. You know, ¿Free of cost or charge, or Free from freedom?. In any case, some people use "Libre" (from the Spanish translation) rather than "Free".
Anyway, I do not agree either with "free from freedom" terminology because you are not entirely free to do whatever you want with a GPL compatible license. For example you can not take the code and publish it as closed source or with a non-free license, which is possible with the BSD license (4 clause) as example. Then the BSD license would be "much free" than a GPL compatible license. I mean, I'm not entirely agree with the terminology, but I completely agree with the points that should be respected on a GPL compatible license. I do not like BSD style licenses because the ​​OpenSource or FreeSoftware idea is that the code is always kept open for anyone to improve it, and then others can continue to improve the new code, and so on to infinity.

I agree with both, and if we refer to the terminology I prefer OpenSource.

The difference between Opensource and Freeware is simply that Opensource allows you to muck with the actual building blocks and src files of the program.Freeware normally is just a free program download without src files.

You say tomato...

(split the difference and call it FOSS)

From what I understand now, after some more readings, there seems to be more than two "camps":

- Free Software (FS) that emphasizes free as a call for freedom
- Libre Software which apears to be FS trying to solve the "free beer or free speech?" semantics issue

- Open Source Software (OSS) that emphasizes efficiency of a development model over a proprietary one, avoiding the word free to satisfy the needs of business world.

- FOSS that tries to combine FS and OSS but refuses (or bypass) to address the existing contradictions between FS and OSS.

- FLOSS that... I don't get the differences with FOSS actually.

Well, I had a flashback from my philosophical courses it seems to me that we have a flaw here, if you close the source you inevitably break the freedom, I mean what become of freedom if, by closing the source, you actually grant you freedom while denying that same freedom to everyone else ?

There are numerous examples of open source which is not free. Meaning, you buy license to the code and you can modify it but not redistribute.

So, basically, to really make any code base free, it would need to be freely distributed and licensed so it can be used any way the user wants. There actually is not much such code, because for some purposes even GPL doesn't cut it. If you want to use GPL licensed code as a part of commercial project, you violate GPL unless you make all the code (also the non-GPL'd parts) freely available.

There are even more free licenses than GPL, but I think only time I've seen code that really is free is some funny Gimp script. The license said that the maker wants never to see the code or have anything to do with it. In addition to that the maker said that anything can be done with that.

I clarify that in case you have misunderstood what I meant: The four clauses BSD license is NOT considered a GPL compatible license (FreeSoftware) or OpenSource license. If I release my code under a BSD license, I am giving you all freedoms. If you modify the code and you release this new code as closed source, that's not my problem. The original code still having all freedoms. So I meant that some people might argue that the BSD license is more free than a GPL because it imposes fewer restrictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses


You be careful not to confuse open source software with software under an "Open Source" license. In the first case you could publich the code and impose many restrictions, so it would not be admitted as an Open Source license because those restrictions.
http://opensource.org/faq#free-software
http://opensource.org/faq

Edit:
Apparently I'm wrong about the BSD license. According to the Wikipedia link, "all" BSD licenses allows proprietary use and allows the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary products. Works based on the material may be released under a proprietary license as closed source software.

And 2-3 clauses BSD license are admitted as OpenSource licenses.
Years and years I having read about this and it still confuses me..

This, I feel, is a very simplistic view and a disingenuous argument that I've heard more often than I'd like.

The idea of copyleft is that it provides freedom to the user, and it guarantees that the user keeps this freedom. To the developer, it guarantees that no one can take their code and lock it down, or abuse it without giving back to the community.

GPL is a copyleft license. Compared to a "permissive" license such as the BSD or MIT licenses, it actually guarantees more freedom, because it ensures that the code stays free. First you have to understand that there is no such thing as absolute freedom, because any freedom is always dependent on taking away some other freedom. For example: My freedom to walk on the streets unharmed is only possible due to taking away your freedom to assault me physically. Your freedom to choose what you eat is only possible due to taking away my freedom to force macaroni down your throat. And more pertinently to the issue at hand: my freedom to choose who to work for and what kind of work to do is only possible due to restricting the freedoms of employers. If employers had the freedom to enslave me for slave labour, I wouldn't have that freedom.

Now at a first sight, I can see how it can seem that the BSD license is more free. Because it lets you do things that the GPL doesn't let you do. But this is fallacious, because if you take away all the laws, all the restrictions, you don't end up with more freedom, you end up with anarchy. In anarchy, the only one with any freedom is the one who carriest the biggest stick. Translated to business terms, whoever has the most market share, the most capital, has the freedom to dictate to others what to do.

So the GPL places restrictions in order to ultimately guarantee the user's freedom. It does this by restricting some freedoms - you're not allowed to close down the code, to take away the freedom of others. However, here comes the tricky part. The copyright owner can always relicense their own code. If the copyright owner (or whoever the copyrights are assigned to) decides so, they can relicense their GPL-software or even close it down. But: the previous, already released versions, still stay under GPL. Only the new versions would be closed, and anyone would still be free to fork the last GPL version. A GPL software can even be dual-licensed, releasing at the same time closed and GPL-licensed versions of the same software. This is however only possible if you own the copyright. So when you say that BSD allows you to close the code but GPL doesn't, you're not even exactly correct.

But enough about the ethics and philosophy, let's look at the practical side. On one hand, we have the BSDs, which are obviously BSD-licensed, and on the other, we have the Linux kernel, licensed under GPLv2. Now, BSDs are struggling to attract developers, and to stay relevant, and this is mostly because developers don't get any guarantee that their code won't be usurped and closed down against their will. Meanwhile, the Linux kernel has grown to become the largest collaborative software project in the history of mankind - open OR closed. And this is largely thanks to the GPL, not despite it. The GPL allows corporations, who sometimes even are in competition with each other, to collaborate together, because they can be sure no one can stab the other in the back and run away with the code. The GPL ensures a level playing field, a sort of truce, where corporations and individuals can gather up and work together.

Now, I'm not saying there isn't a place for the BSD license, it can be better suited for some projects. But claiming that it's more free than the GPL is just wrong.

I agree, and I have said before that I do not like the BSD license. I just said some may argue that it is more free than the GPL (and in fact some people argue that)

Just to clarify, if I could do something which would benefit many others, I probably would publish it as GPL.

But that what I said was from experience: my friend is an entrepreneur and he has cursed many times the GPL because he can't use the code. He's using other commercial tools which he can't combine with GPL code without license violation. So he is reduced to writing code which duplicates the functionality without adding practically anything.

I do hope that everyone understands that there are different views on this. I'm not belittling GPL in any way. I have great respect to open source movements.

Well, OpenSource developers have even more disadvantages than your friend. Usually, they don't even have that commercial tools code or specifications available, and therefore is much more difficult to duplicate that privative software functionality

I'd also like to insert another clarification here, what you are referring to is lawlessness or chaos. Anarchy is ""leaderlessness"" which is a totally different concept if you think about it, etymologically, it derives from (ancient) greek ἀναρχία / anarkhia, where "an" means absence and arkhê means hierarchy, leader. Sorry for focusing on this little word in your long post but, you know... this is the nickname I picked

Eh... no offense to your friend, but why does your friend think he/she is entitled to use GPL code in the first place? If your friend writes open source software, he/she can easily use GPL code - just needs to license his/her own code with a compatible license. If your friend writes proprietary software, well... then it's really kind of absurd to curse the GPL for not being able to use it in proprietary software - the very reason for GPL to exist is to prevent the code being closed.

If you're not willing to open your code and contribute back to the ecosystem, then you have no business complaining about not being able to benefit from other people's work, that's my view on the issue.

@YAFU, @dd: Once again, I'm not attacking GPL in any way. I respect it. But really, my friend in kind of one-man band, he is not some giant conglomerate. Not being able to use some code which could be used in his product (a simulator) means that functionality will not be there. He also respects GPL, he doesn't steal. There are licenses like MIT and zlib, which permit using the code commercially as closed source, which he can use; GPL, not. He can't open source all because part of his toolset is commercial.

I just want everyone to remember, we have differences in our life situations. If your family's livelihood depends on your coding, you are bound to have different view on things than we here have.

Nobody is being disrespectful towards open source or GPL. You're very intelligent people, you are able to see this view.

Yes, well. Look at it this way: if the code your friend wanted to use were closed/proprietary, then he couldn't use it anyway. If the code is under GPL, your friend has the option of contacting the author/copyright owner of the code and asking if they'd be willing to license it to him under another kind of license, perhaps for pay - the same option he would have with proprietary software. Ultimately, it's always up to the copyright owner, and the copyright owner doesn't HAVE to permit any use of their code.

I'm sorry, I just don't have any sympathy for people complaining "I can't use this code because it's GPL and I'd want to embed it to my proprietary, closed codebase". For some reason, those same people never complain "I can't use this code because it's proprietary". They just assume that because a code is open source, they should be allowed to use it however they want, profit from other people's work without contributing anything back. That is exactly the kind of behaviour the GPL was designed to prevent.

Here's a comparison: say you make an illustration or drawing, and license it under a CC-BY-SA license. Now some other artist comes along, and complains that they can't use your work, because they work for a company, which insists on owning the full rights to the work. The other artist then says that CC-BY-SA licenses are bad because they prevent him from using your work, and force him to do more work himself. Do you think that's reasonable?



I don't think you're being disrespectful, I just don't think your friend's reasons for disliking GPL are valid. The people who wrote those GPL softwares didn't need to make their code available under any open source license, so it just seems absurd to me to complain about it. Kind of like looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Also, there are plenty of ways to make money from GPL-licensed software, and from writing GPL-licensed code. It's a growing market, open source is becoming a huge business, as people everywhere are beginning to see the advantages. Which is why I can't really see the "I need to feed my family" -argument very convincing either.

All I'm really saying is, if you want/need to make money by writing proprietary code, that's fine, but then you don't have any right to complain that other people won't make their efforts available to you for free. If you don't want to work for free, don't expect other people to either.

I'd like to toss my 2c into the discussion and say that I'm in the "all of the above" camp. I feel there is room for all types of licensing schemes, be it Freeware, Shareware, Open Source, Open Core, Commercial or any combination thereof. There are occasions when it makes sense to utilize any one of those licenses.

There is also no reason why a GPL version of a routine or application should hinder a developer. As we like to say in the South; "There's more than one way to skin a cat". If you give 5 developers on Gimp Chat a scripting task, they will come up with 5 different algorithms to achieve the same results. Seems to me that having access to open source code under GPL would be an advantage to the developer and give them some ideas about how to implement the routines using their own techniques.

A good analogy might be that of reiterating a point that you read in a copyrighted web article. One could make the same point and not use the same words or phrases, avoiding the copyright violations that would occur from a wholesale cut & paste.

The more sticky issue can be that of software patents, where the "look & feel" of an app or the data file layout, encoding/decoding (functionality) is protected. This is where legalities can get really fuzzy.

Um, my English seems to be inadequate. So, while I think I do understand waht dd is saying, I do not think I can manage to communicate what I mean. I'm sorry to cause furor, I really do not want to. So, ignore what I said. I still maintain that GPL is a good and honorable thing.