Great definition Jay... I would love that others "free software" fanatics also share your point of view. The open source community has really to learn to differenciate 1) the rights of getting an access to the source code or being able to redistribute it and 2) the rights of using it. This is two things completely different. However due to the current mix open source = free software, this leads to a lot of confusion in the marketplace. Quite a shame for all the softwares that has available source code and that are still considered as "proprietary" by certain analysts or GPL/BSD gurus !
My 2cts
Stéphane
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stéphane Croisier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jahia : The Open Java CMS and Corporate Portal Solution
http://www.jahia.org
-------------------------------------------------------------
At 07:01 06.11.2002 -0600, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip] - comes with full open program source (but is not Open Source as in FREE). [/snip]Open Source <> Free Open Source - the code is available to the licensee of the program for modification. It is encouraged that modifications be shared so that others may benefit from improvements. Directions specific to the encouragement, such as where improvements should be submitted, are contained in the license. Free - available at no charge These are mutually exclusive terms. Some, but not all, Open Source applications are available at no charge making those particular applications Free. The other Open Source applications are available for whatever price is currently being charged for the licensing (like any M$, CA, Lotus, or other application which is Closed Source and requires that a potential licensee parts with some amount of cash) for that product. The licensee of that product has the source code available to them for modification should they desire it. It is encouraged that these modifications be shared with the licensor, such that these improvements may be included in further releases of the product. Most vendors that have an Open Source application for which there is a charge for the licensing will generally provide discounts to those contributing in the improvement of the code. I believe that the association of the word "free" with the term "open source" has done a great deal to diminish the true value of Open Source products, no matter the vehicle chosen for licensing. Many is the Open Source product (free or not) that solves problems or enhances operations where a closed source solution just would not work. You might be able to see where a slight change to a closed source program would render the required solution, but you have unavailable to you the means to make this happen quickly. (In closed source you can make requests of the manufacturer that may or may not get included in the next release. With an Open Source product you can make the change locally [solving your problem] and submit the mods, which may or may not be included in the next release depending on overall importance to the core of the product, but you will have a product that works for you.) I also believe that it is this lack of clarity in communications which often places too much distance between the techs and non-techs. **stepping down now** Jay Blanchard nii communications, inc. -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
