What is OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE?
Ikke-kategoriseret
18
Indlæg
5
Posters
0
Visninger
-
Linux is the predominant "alternative" computer ecosystem today, and it arose largely upon the use of (and popularity of) the GPL. The GPL also came well before the notion of "Open Source", though the BSD licenses are now (rightfully) regarded as Open Source (ex post facto).
-
My point was, that the original Unix was not GPL, BSD or even in spirit 'open source'. It was proprietary. But got copied anyway. Not 'given away as a gift to the world', though it turned out to be, eventually.
arose largely upon the use of (and popularity of) the GPL
Maybe. But BSD was embroiled in a lawsuit by AT&T just as Linux took off. I don't think, the GPL was the main driver. If anything, the GNU tools were, since Linux at the time was just a kernel (and still is) and needed actual software. That GNU software came with the GPL, for better or worse, and most Linux devs developed a habit to publish under the GPL.
The BSD license is arguably more 'free' than the GPL, since it's placing less restrictions on so-licensed code, though many prefer the GPL for those very extra restrictions on ideological grounds. -
Linux is the predominant "alternative" computer ecosystem today, and it arose largely upon the use of (and popularity of) the GPL. The GPL also came well before the notion of "Open Source", though the BSD licenses are now (rightfully) regarded as Open Source (ex post facto).@Tom Grzybow @Harka - Yea, I know. Tried to make it funny to compensate for idyllized simplifications and glorification of individuals (the people needs heroes).
Both in this and in the previous instalment about the federated media I have had to do something I am not comfortable with at all - propaganda
I really had to laugh at myself on that account.
I could also have mentioned that activity-pub was a imperialistic and dividing force that tore the whole "fediverse"-community in half not being designed to accommodate the already existing network and leaving Diaspora to die in a ditch. But these small comics are meant for the Folkeføderation-project where we try to get Danes to organise in coops and all the terrible details of anarchist software-development are probably not the smartest thing to exhibit right now. I would rather lure people in and then reveal the clusterfuck later
-
Linux is the predominant "alternative" computer ecosystem today, and it arose largely upon the use of (and popularity of) the GPL. The GPL also came well before the notion of "Open Source", though the BSD licenses are now (rightfully) regarded as Open Source (ex post facto).@Tom Grzybow @Harka - Using the Firefox-logo right now was also a point of debate I anticipated (I had a (definitely friendly and constructive) comment on the Danish version). I will probably make the svg-file with the text public, så people can change things as they like.
-
Yes, there is some difference between open source and FOSS. But the difference is rather small if you compare it to prorietary software. Even with OS the code is in the world and will be copied all over the globe (if it is useful). Even I use open source for my own software, although it is even FOSS. I simply don't care about this small detail.
-
Yes, there is some difference between open source and FOSS. But the difference is rather small if you compare it to prorietary software. Even with OS the code is in the world and will be copied all over the globe (if it is useful). Even I use open source for my own software, although it is even FOSS. I simply don't care about this small detail.@Rasmus Fuhse - It can be changed to FOSS - Open source is just a word that is very often used - a bit like saying Linux instead of GNU/Linux. I am definitely open for proposals
-
@Katharsisdrill:
the people needs heroes
Oh, Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie absolutely deserve the label of 'heroes', though they likely had no inkling whatsoever of the impact Unix would eventually have. If nothing else, visionaries and extremely bright folks.
We should not forget, under what conditions they created the first releases of Unix, like: they had a glorious 8K RAM to work with, interactions not on screens but only via line printers and all in assembly language, since C didn't even exist yet (they wrote that, too). That's like building a rocket in the stone-age!
-
The BSD license is arguably more ‘free’ than the GPL, since it’s placing less restrictions on so-licensed code, though many prefer the GPL for those very extra restrictions on ideological grounds.
Precisely. Free Software is oriented more towards community sharing, and less toward corporate preference.. -
Open Source Software != Free Software
"Open Source" is a Thing, Free Software is a Process.
https://medium.com/@tomgrzybow/a-new-ethos-for-free-software-23ce91677ec6
https://medium.com/@tomgrzybow/the-activist-ethos-for-free-software-b035abaf438e -
The BSD license is arguably more ‘free’ than the GPL, since it’s placing less restrictions on so-licensed code, though many prefer the GPL for those very extra restrictions on ideological grounds.
Precisely. Free Software is oriented more towards community sharing, and less toward corporate preference…
Sure about that?:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/issues/913
https://socket.dev/blog/the-unpaid-backbone-of-open-source
I don't think it matters much, whether some code is licensed BSD or GPL. All companies care about is being able to use it freely (gratis!). Hardly any of them 'give back' in any shape, way or form, as is very apparent. Not even donations beyond token amounts to get their logo listed. -
This is not true. Most companies have a strong dislike for the GPL, and they hold some fear of the legal encumbrance.
As far as "Free" goes, the two types of licenses illustrate two different types of "Freedom". The GPL sees Freedom as a process - the process whereby the code is made more available over time and across developers. The BSD licenses see Freedom as a relatively instantaneous thing: you get it now, and that's it - the deal is done. -
Most companies have a strong dislike for the GPL, and they hold some fear of the legal encumbrance. And this is why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation -
This is not true. Most companies have a strong dislike for the GPL, and they hold some fear of the legal encumbrance.
Perhaps when we're talking about including GPL code into a company's product code base the lawyers might be wary, I agree.
But the majority of used GPL software, from what I know, is simple programs installed on desktops or Linux distributions installed as 'servers'. The main point for doing so is the exact same as widely touted initially by FOSS advocates: 'it's free!' (as in gratis). So they use it accordingly without return contribution of any kind. And that is a huge problem for FOSS, whatever license! -
Sure, software gets written to be used. Nothing wrong with that at all.
The problems come along with subsequent expectations. Corporate preference, as you called it, seems to enjoy taking something for free and then expecting continued free labor on part of the (hobbyist) maintainers (security and bug fixes etc.) without any direct incentive given to do so.
The articles I linked above touch on that topic. -
@Tom Grzybow @Harka @David @Rasmus Fuhse - Okay. Seems I by mistake erased the page from my website. Now I just decided to rework it based on your suggestions...So:
New headline: What is FREE, OPEN SOFTWARE?
(and open source replaced with free, open software throughout)
Now... more complicated. The transition from AT&T to BSD.
"When they had invented it, it was all given away as a gift to the world. That's what free software is all about. Giving away your code so that others can read and copy it as they please."
Any suggestions on how to get closer to the historic facts with about the same character-count while keeping it simple and positive (this is sort of propaganda after all).
