|
Labeling is a problem, and I think the accepted defintion of "open source" is not a very good one. We have "free" software, "open source" software, and "free and open source" software, but I feel these terms are too amorphous and overlap needlessly. It would be easier to describe some of these "kind of open source" licenses if "free" and "open source" had more disjoint definitions. Free software gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with the software: run it however you want, modify it, redistribute it, whatever. It should be possible to have "free" software that is not open source, i.e., software that requires more roundabout hacking to modify. You'd have the right to redistribute your modifications, even if they were made without the benefit of having the original source. I would expect most free software to also be open source, but it needn't be required Open source software ought to simply describe software that is 'open' in the sense that you peer into it, see how it works, tinker with it, and otherwise extend it with the benefit of having the original source code. It shouldn't necessarily imply the same level of freedom as 'free' software. The right to resell, for example, need not be guaranteed. Free and open source would combine the rights conferred by being both free and open source, just as it does today: you can use, modify, and redistribute the software and/or its source code (which is freely available) however you like, give or take some licensing nuances like reciprocity. On a side note, I agree about the ambiguity of 'free' and the the confusion regarding "free as in speech" and "free as in beer". I will also note that I misunderstood "free as in beer" for a very long time. I'd originally assumed it related to the fact that no one 'owns' beer (in the IP sense): everyone is free to make and sell it. |
Yup. When I first heard about it in high school forever ago, I thought it sarcastically meant for-pay software, because beer costs money. A free ($0) beer is very rare.