Slashdot Mirror

SugarCRM has been high on my list of projects claiming to be "open source" when they really weren't (according to the OSI-definition atleast, feel free to flame me that OSI has nothing to do with this). Free Distribution is #1 in the open source definition, and projects like SugarCRM forbid this (for instance for commercial purposes).

If even their own community started complaining, then it's about time to either go open or go proprietary. Projects that hang in-between just muddle the waters.

I've killed some time on this since it's a pretty interesting idea. It turns out there are plenty outside the D and F range. It does seem to like pages with a single Flash object and not much else, so that's bad. It also makes some pretty arbitrary decisions which don't mean squat to many sites. There are some sites that get enough traffic that speed is a factor but not so much that a content delivery network is really necessary, for example.

I skipped the actual link and score on sites that are pretty much just representative of the sites around them. I wanted to include them by name, though, to show where they fall. I've stuck mostly to main index pages, and I've noted where I've gone deeper.

A: Google (99%), Altavista main page (98%), Altavista Babelfish (90%) (including upon doing a translation from English to French), Craigslist (96%), Pricewatch (93%), Slackware Linux, OpenBSD, Led Zeppelin site at Atlantic (100%), supremecommander.com, w3m web browser site (96%)

B: Apache.org (87%), the lighttpd web server (84%), Google Maps, which also got a C once (84% in most cases), Perlmonks (84%), Dragonfly BSD (85%), Butthole Surfers band page (81%), 37 Signals

C: One Laptop Per Child,, ESR's homepage, the Open Source Initiative (78%), Google News (73%), Lucid CMS (74%), Perl.org (75%), lucasfilm.com, Charred Dirt game

D: gnu.org, The Register, A9 (66%), kernel.org, Akamai (64%), kuro5hin.org, freshmeat.net, linuxcd.org, Movable Type (61%), Postnuke, blogster.com, Joel on Software (67%), Fog Creek Software, metallica.com, gaspowered.com, Scorched 3D (68%), id software (64%), ISBN.nu book search

F: MS IIS (49%), microsoft.com, msn.com, linux.com, fsf.org, discovery.com, newegg.com, rackspace.com, the Simtel archive (26%), CNet Download (29%), Adobe (58%), savvis.com, mtv.com, sun.com, pclinuxos.com, freebsd.org, phpnuke.org, use.perl.org, ruby-lang.org, python.org, java.com, Rolling Stones band page (56%), powellsbooks.com, amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, getfirefox.com

My site for my company (96%) gets an A (no, I'm not going to get it slashdotted) which is pretty simple but has a pic and some Javascript on it. Several sites I have done or have helped design with someone else get C or D ratings.

Some pedantry here, but FreeBSD is an operating system whereas the BSD license is a legal document.

Hi Mr. Microsoft Employee!

What makes you say that? That I object to FUD regurdless of the source? Is FUD any less FUD because Comrade Stallman spews it verses Generalissimo Ballmer? Facts are facts: There are a wide variety of true Open Source licenses, that contrary to Stallman et al are perfectly honorable. As well, Stallman is has not yet been declared The One True God, and so people still have the freedom to choose other non-GPL based Open Source licenses (of which there are a number of quite nice ones).

And, as is the correct thing in a free capitalist country such as the USA, we are not obligated by law to follow Comrade Stallman's dictates and choose his One True Open Source License at all. Isn't that what freedom is about? This isn't the world according to Stallman. We can always choose one of the many other Open Source licenses, or even a closed license.

GPL Alturnatives

I have serious issues with the impact of GPLv3 on the use of Open Source in an embedded environment on specialized hardware. But I am very happy to recommend and follow GPLv2.

Interesting license clause for an 'open source' project: "You MAY NOT use the Licensed Software to operate in or as a time-sharing, outsourcing, service bureau, application service provider or managed service provider environment."

It's more open than most (i.e. other than that clause and a somewhat obnoxious advertising clause), it's MPL. It's a lot better than the typical EULA attached to this type of software. But, it'd be nice to reclaim the phrase "open source", per Michael Tiemann's essay on the subject. It lacks a lot of the obnoxious prohibitions on reverse engineering, so it's most likely better than the competition.

Perhaps its time to come up with a pithy name for this type of software, without resorting to anything /too/ derogatory. I nominate "fauxpen source".

You know, I'm willing to bet that's how the MIT License read before the lawyers got to it.

Of course, the FSF won't go for that license because they can't see the code if someone makes changes and distributes the changed version as binaries.

I prefer a more neutral list rather than one that attempts to vilify other licenses in favor of their own.

They are similar but not the same.

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html

The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement." For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.

Regarding Open Source software from http://www.opensource.org/

Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.

The confusing part is that the GPL (and many other licenses) is both a Free Software license and a Open Source license. Some people choose it to further Open Source and other use it to further Free Software.

I guess choosing which ideology to support depends on what one is ultimately willing to sacrifice; freedom or quality.

Just because you can see the code, it doesn't mean that it's open source (remember Microsoft's "shared source"?).

OSI's Open Source Definition specifically forbids such not-for-commercial-use clauses.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

read it.

Since it's a well defined trademarked term all that matters is what OSI thinks. They use it for their web content but don't list at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical so it would seem they don't think it is Open Source and hence it isn't by definition.

Another GPL history rewriter. How convenient. They always have to attack anything in sight, with nonsense.

Do you always begin your discussions so harshly, drawing sweeping generalizations (which are bound to be untrue) about people? Is it really impossible that I could have misspoken where many thousands of free software activists have not?

The FSF does NOT predate open source, this is false. Perhaps you're confusing with the OSI?

The OSI takes credit for "inventing the 'open source' label" (which I take to mean using the term "open source" in this context) on February 3, 1998 at a "strategy session [...] in Palo Alto, California". Like you, they too try to extend their influence to cover a wide range of activities which predate the existence of their group without clear documentation that those projects actually shared their philosophy, and part of that work includes a confusing use of the term "free software" ("the entire history of Unix, Internet free software, and the hacker culture."). It seems hard to maintain both that one "invented" something which has such a long "prehistory". But, more importantly, no matter how far back their philosophical roots go, it's clear that some important work which gets undeservedly little credit was not done under their aegis nor in line with their philosophy—the GNU work Richard Stallman started, for one. It is plainly hypocritical, regardless of what one thinks of Stallman's politics, to give credit where credit is due for, say Torvalds' initial work on the Linux kernel, but not anyone's work on GNU programs.

I for one think the GPL freedomology-rap and redefinition for their own purposes, is pure decadence from people completely disconnected from real issues of freedom, poverty and war in the world.

Your glib rancor hasn't shown how the FSF is improperly using the words "free" and/or "freedom" (as in "software freedom"). It's a shame you don't think they're contributing positively to the world. You try to minimize their effort by arguing the glass is half-empty; we should look at these huge social problems they're not solving. Arguments like that invariably end up backfiring by drawing more attention to how, apparently, you too are not single-handedly solving "poverty and war in the world". Better to recognize that these are enormous problems anyone would be proud to solve if they had something to offer besides what anti-poverty and anti-war activists have been doing since time immemorial.

You should really read the Open Source Definition if that is what you're implying.

Perhaps I should be clearer. My problem with equating open source with free software is that the words "open source," on their face, do not disclose anything about the underlying intellectual property. When I hear open source, I think of a developer allowing customers and competitors to see what's "under the hood." Customers are able to evaluate the vendor's products at a much more intimate level. Researchers can test and develop the ideas embedded inside the code. I can hardly blame a software company for using a different definition of "open source" than the one proposed at opensource.org; it's not dishonest - just an honest difference in opinion about what the term means.

I also want to emphasize that the need for the "non-free, open source" distinction is meaningful on a practical level. Let me give a concrete example. I once applied (unsuccessfully) to a company called RapidMind that produces middleware for multiprocessing systems. The company came out of the University of Waterloo. In order to attract the best and brightest, the computer science faculty at Waterloo allows its professors to keep intellectual property on their research. RapidMind in turn has an interest in keeping its source code open to the academic community, and its library is freely available online.

But it's not just the acadamians who benefit from the open distribution. Developers who want to experiment with the library are free to do so before they decide whether or not to purchase licensing rights. The economy at large benefits from being able to freely experiment with the library, and RapidMind gets wider recognition and the wider range of customers that comes with it.

Note that RapidMind still gets to hold on to its IP in this model.

The words "open source" intuitively mean the open distribution of source code. It's a fully-formed idea that stands on its own merits. The open distribution of intellectual property is a separate idea; it is a different solution to a different problem, and I submit that it needs a separate name.

Hey Bruce,
Firstly, thanks for your work. We all benefit greatly in the community from it. As for the "open source" definition, I think RMS would say something about your use of "freedom", not once in the OSI definition does it say "freedom". ( http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php ) That's what makes it such a crappy definition imho. He can probably explain it better than I can, but I imagine him saying something like "they've taken from open source what always could be taken". And they can't take that from free software. Ask him...I'm not good at explaining things. But I imagine he would explain it well. reply to this if you do ask him.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

        * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
        * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
        * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
        * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
(Sources: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html )

Regards,
Anonymous Coward

So my license I make up for the hell of it with my terms that still allows anyone to view and audit my code if not approved by OSI means I can't market open source?

If it doesn't meet the Open Source Definition, then you can't. I imagine they probably wouldn't come after you for advertising as open-source with a license that met the OSD but wasn't OSI-approved. Anyway, the cost of getting a new license approved by the OSI is basically put it on a webpage and summarize it for them.

Even though my code is open?

You may call it "open" if you like, but not "open source". (You may have noticed that the two terms differ by 6 letters.) Other terms starting with "open" under which you probably can't advertise it include: OpenGL, OpenBSD, The Open Group, and the US Open.

Am I missing something about the word open?

No, it's the word "source" you seem to be missing. :-)

"I've been using the term "open source" since before the GPL or Linux existed, and I disagree with their definition. I release things under licenses that fail arbitrary clauses in their definition by being too liberal - I don't make several of the asinine restrictions their supposed "definition" requires me to make, such as the GPL source redistribution clause"

What licenses are more 'liberal' than the equivalent OSI license? Give specifics. By what logic is a coda that prevents the redistribution of code less restrictive that one that allows unfettered redistribution? Give examples of these other licenses with less 'restrictions'.

"This is the fundamental problem with GPL. None of this effort is useful. .. use the GPL if you want, but it causes enormous problems"

Could you give us some examples of these 'enormous problems'?

- quote -

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution

2. Source Code

3. Derived Works

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

7. Distribution of License

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

*10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

- unquote -

was: Re:Oh, honestly

I can write a program and publish it with the source with the license "Do whatever you want with it but don't call me "Shirley"". And this IS an Open Source program like it or not.

If you have such a license (though why you wouldn't pick one of the existing ones, I don't understand), you can get OSI's rubber stamp on your license.

Really, the process doesn't look very hard or time-consuming, and at the end, if open-source is a selling point of your software, you can say "see, this standardizing body says that my software really is open source".

If you don't want to bother with the OSI process, well, think whatever you want about your license. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Just please don't confuse Pointy-Haired Bosses by mucking with semantics. Analogy: a modified Linux is still Linux (sort of), but if you care about the community, you'll help keep things clear by not selling Linux-with-intentional-bugs-thrown-in as "Linux".

The restrictions for open source include Free Redistribution and allowing derived works. You seem to be implying that Shared Source is an open source license, which is wrong. You should really read the Open Source Definition if that is what you're implying.

© 2006 California Institute of Technology ("Caltech").
This software, including source and object code, and any accompanying documentation ("Software") is owned by Caltech. Caltech has designated this Software as Technology and Software Publicly Available ("TSPA"), which means that this Software is publicly available under U.S. Export Laws. With the TSPA designation, a user may use and distribute the Software on a royalty-free basis with the understanding that:

1. The Software shall not be used for commercial production or sale of any commercial product or derivative incorporating the Software. Should the user desire to use the Software for any such commercial purpose, the user must contact the Office of Technology Transfer at Caltech to obtain permissions and pay the appropriate royalty; and

2. THIS SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS WERE CREATED BY THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) UNDER A U.S. GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA). THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF PERFORMANCE OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE (AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES UCC 2312-2313) OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, FOR THE SOFTWARE AND RELATED MATERIALS, HOWEVER USED.

IN NO EVENT SHALL CALTECH, ITS JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, OR NASA BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AND/OR COSTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PROPERTY AND LOST PROFITS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CALTECH, JPL, OR NASA BE ADVISED, HAVE REASON TO KNOW, OR, IN FACT, SHALL KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY.

RECIPIENT BEARS ALL RISK RELATING TO QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY CALTECH AND NASA FOR ALL THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE ACTIONS OF RECIPIENT IN THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE; and

3. Caltech is under no obligation to provide technical support for the Software; and

4. All copies of the Software released by user must be marked with this marking language, inclusive of the copyright statement, TSPA designation and user understandings.

``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.

released under the open-source MIT license (which I assume is the reason they can't bundle it with Windows)

I'm not a lawyer, of course, but I don't think the MIT license would prevent them from redistributing anything. It only includes the standard "no warranty" clause and a requirement to include the license and copyright notice when distributing the software. The BSD license has more restrictions than that, and there's plenty of BSD code in a standard Windows distribution.

I like either GPL version, but if you're not too hung-up on using GPL, http://www.opensource.org/ has a whole array of open-source offically-sanctioned licensing - one of those may fit your needs better. (cue RMS fans w/ mod points stampeding in protest, but seriously; if it does the job, use it).

So... you're suggesting that he solve his GPL version compatibility problem by choosing some other license that's potentially incompatible with all versions of the GPL? Somehow I don't think that's going to help.

OR... you can use Trolltech's licensing scheme (OSS projects get to use it free, commercial ones have to pay up licensing fees).

I like either GPL version, but if you're not too hung-up on using GPL, http://www.opensource.org/ has a whole array of open-source offically-sanctioned licensing - one of those may fit your needs better. (cue RMS fans w/ mod points stampeding in protest, but seriously; if it does the job, use it).

The beauty of this is, it's all up to you how you want to handle it.

/P

1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?

dynamic linking is too much to bear

4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?

5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?

I'm not a fan of GPL anyway, give me BSD/Apache/MIT any day

the nice thing is that if you don't agree with the aims of the author of some code then you can simply not use it. go find an alternative or write it yourself under your *fave* license. here you go. enjoy:

http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

http://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php

http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

I'm not a fan of GPL anyway, give me BSD/Apache/MIT any day

the nice thing is that if you don't agree with the aims of the author of some code then you can simply not use it. go find an alternative or write it yourself under your *fave* license. here you go. enjoy:

http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

http://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php

http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

I'm not a fan of GPL anyway, give me BSD/Apache/MIT any day

the nice thing is that if you don't agree with the aims of the author of some code then you can simply not use it. go find an alternative or write it yourself under your *fave* license. here you go. enjoy:

http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

http://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php

http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

Because I've seen more projects move in the opposite direction -- moving away from BSD-like and into GPLV2 rather than the other way around.

Perhspa something to do with ease? BSD to GPL:
1. Start including GPL code. Done.

GPL to BSD:
1. Make a complete list of all your contributors, ever
2. Try to contact everyone, moved, missing, dead, whatever
3. Pray really hard everyone will want to relicense
4. Check all libraries and see that they're not GPL
5. Whatever code and libraries you can't relicense, rewrite

Of course, the BSD camp will take this as proof that BSD is "freer" than the GPL. And the GPL camp will take it as proof that exactly what's wrong with BSD/free is how easy it is to make it not BSD/free. To me it seems counter-intuitive to promote the ten freedoms of open source as means when the ends typically is software that has none (i.e. proprietary, source-less derivates). It's like a living tree that spawns dead branches, does that make sense to anyone?

Can we please put a clause in GPLv3 that prevents GPL'd software from being used to kill people?

Those kind of clauses could be added, but then GPL'd software wouldn't be open source anymore (check out number 6). Besides, do you really want a Linux where package A can't be used by the military, package B can't be used for commercial purposes, package C can't be used for stem cell research, package D can't be used by black people, and so on?

Now, the question we are all asking... which license?

There is at least one OSI-approved free license that is based on contract law instead of upon copyright law: the NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA). The terms in the agreement do not require copyright (though that certainly strengthens the agreement enforceability) since the U.S. Government cannot claim copyright on original works within the U.S. per U.S. law, though they can be claimed internationally. Copyright in the U.S. can generally only be acquired through copyright assignment (e.g., from a contractor) so having an Open Source agreement that does not rely upon copyright is crucial for many government-owned codes.

The NOSA was tentatively considered for BRL-CAD and was the prevailing option for a while, though BRL-CAD ultimately ended up under the LGPL and BSD license (each for different parts of the package). That consideration was entirely due to copyright issues with the (large) codebase, though copyright was ultimately acquired (through assignment) allowing for the adoption of more familiar Open Source licenses.

Just in case the moderator is wrong, and you really are as ignorant as you appear:

1) The FSF has nothing to do with the term "Open Source", apart from an active dislike. They prefer "free software". The organization stewarding the Open Source Definition is the Open Source Initiative.

2) The term "open source" was not applied to software before a meeting 1998 amongst people interested in commercializing free software, where the term was first defined. They did try to trademark it in order to prevent it from being diluted like the term "free software" had already been, but a trademark requires a specific product for trade.

Just in case the moderator is wrong, and you really are as ignorant as you appear:

1) The FSF has nothing to do with the term "Open Source", apart from an active dislike. They prefer "free software". The organization stewarding the Open Source Definition is the Open Source Initiative.

2) The term "open source" was not applied to software before a meeting 1998 amongst people interested in commercializing free software, where the term was first defined. They did try to trademark it in order to prevent it from being diluted like the term "free software" had already been, but a trademark requires a specific product for trade.

This was 100% predictable. I'm too lazy to go find where I predicted it, but every industry consists of a mix of inputs. The inputs are chosen based on their value to the company in producing the final product. If you make one of the inputs cheaper (by including outsourcing) (or by including Open Source) that causes the industry to use *more* of the product over time. In the short run, they'll use less because all of their processes are predicated on using the original mix. As they buy new equipment, hire people with different skills, and make new products, they can change the mix to make new of the new cheaper factor.

PLus, I'm in teh race for fr1st p0st.

Like many, I started out with GPL, moved up to LGPL, and finally realized that the BSD license was really the fairest.

The license is short and to-the-point, giving the author all the recognition and indemnity they need, and users all the freedom to derive that they could want.

Stay away from the silliness that is the whole inbred family of Creative Common licenses. They're a mistake that should never have happened.

You can see a sample BSD license here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

I find it hilarious that the OP asked how to educate him/her-self on this topic and immediately there are lots of post recommending a license (overwhelmingly the GPL); this is NOT what the OP asked for.

@OP:

If you want to educate yourself on what licenses would be appropriate for what /you/ want, read the licenses. This site:

http://opensource.org/

has a TONNE of them.

The most common are the BSD, MIT, MPL, Apache, GPL and LGPL. That is according to sf.net. Please note that there are licenses that don't just protect you, but seriously effect how others can use your work. Please consider this as well when choosing your license.

To add in my personal opinion, I *really* don't like the GPL. What it does is FORCE other developers that use your work (whether dynamically linked to or not) to use the GPL as well. My personal opinion is that as a developer, I don't have the right to choose the license of someone else's work. There is of course the argument that the developer just shouldn't use your work. But, IMO, that is a non-argument as in some areas there really is only one or two real options.

At any rate, agree or disagree. That's just my opinion.

Ask the authors of the majority of the licences in this list that are copyleft.

The simple reality is that GPLv2 wasn't perfect. Many projects have seen the need to create their own licenses, often licenses that are incompatible with the GPL. Some of those licenses are more liberal than the GPL, others are more strict. In many cases, small changes to the GPL that would have had the support of the vast majority of people who use it, would have made the license acceptable.

The big one concerns the effects of patents.

Is basically the MIT license with a few tweaks to the first paragraph (e.g. person -> person or organisation), the second paragraph expanded to cover some of the ideas in the middle section of the BSD licence and the third paragraph verbatim (or practically verbatim). Note that it appears equivalent to the MIT license in that there's no non-endorsement clause as you'd find in BSD or Apache 1.1.

Is basically the MIT license with a few tweaks to the first paragraph (e.g. person -> person or organisation), the second paragraph expanded to cover some of the ideas in the middle section of the BSD licence and the third paragraph verbatim (or practically verbatim). Note that it appears equivalent to the MIT license in that there's no non-endorsement clause as you'd find in BSD or Apache 1.1.

Is basically the MIT license with a few tweaks to the first paragraph (e.g. person -> person or organisation), the second paragraph expanded to cover some of the ideas in the middle section of the BSD licence and the third paragraph verbatim (or practically verbatim). Note that it appears equivalent to the MIT license in that there's no non-endorsement clause as you'd find in BSD or Apache 1.1.

And anyway, it's not open source, because I can't take the entire source and produce a rival product using it.

The Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) is the least restrictive of the Microsoft source code licenses. It allows you to view, modify, and redistribute the source code for either commercial or non-commercial purposes. Under the Ms-PL, you may change the source code and share it with others. You may also charge a licensing fee for your modified work if you wish.

Enterprise versions with those sorts of licenses are not OSS licenses, so the original author is correct and egork is a prat (that revolting confluence of arrogance and incompetence).

Yes, it's in recognition of Microsoft's increasing acceptance of Open Source that we moved the Halloween Documents off our website onto Eric Raymond's website. We only have a link from http://opensource.org/halloween/ to Eric's site. Perhaps if Microsoft makes some more concrete step towards being a member of the Open Source community (e.g. by sumitting their licenses for OSI approval, hint, hint), we might remove even the link.

"Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute,"

"Introduction

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"

http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Mod parent way down.

1. There is no "Qmail license." Qmail is license-free. There is just a permission to distribute. 2. The qmail permission is not OSI-approved.

Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute

"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

Note that the Open Source Definition also requires that distribution of modifications in source form must be allowed.

No, the real difference between Open Source advocates and Free Software advocates is on a philosophical level. Open Source advocates proclaim that as a software development methodology, open source offers advantages in certain contexts. No overarching moral claim is made about the software, its developers, or its consumers. Free Software advocates tend to agree with the methodological point, but go further in pronouncing that there is some sort of basic right to source code that people have. This is a moral claim, and hence not something that can be resolved as a matter of fact. You either subscribe to that moral view of the world, or you don't. Most businesses do not subscribe to that view of the world, and most open source advocates remain agnostic. Thus Open Source tends to be a more business-friendly view of the world than Free Software.

Now if we just renamed both to "Freedom Software"... English does have a translation of Libre.

So to answer the question: Mu.