Chris wrote: > v4vijayakumar wrote: > > >> I think the OP needs to clarify what /he/ meant by free software as > >> we seem to be reading his intentions differently. > >> > >> To the OP when you say 'free software' to you mean free as in freedom > >> or free as in no cost? > > > > Sorry, I never thought that there is more than one meaning for "open" > > and "free". I meant "not open" by "free", because this is my problem > > area. > > This is the problem of the English language as free can mean both 'open' > and no cost :-( In other European languages the distinction is much > clearer. Hence, those terms are often borrowed: the term 'gratis' is > used to refer to no cost software and 'libre' to refer to open source > software. > > Generally, people use the terms free and open interchangeably. However, > as someone else mentioned, freeware is something else. It is usually > not libre but it is gratis. > > > Proprietary software is also not open but they are not "free". > > Proprietary software can be gratis, but cannot be libre. > > > By "open", I meant software that we have access to its source code. > > Yes the term open is less prone to confusion. > > > Still, I think "open" and "free" mean the same way in "Open Software > > Foundation" and "Free Software Foundation". > > ITYM the Open Source Initiative? To many people open and free/libre mean > the same thing, but advocates of FSF and OSI often have a disagreement > over /exactly/ what it means. I think it comes down to licensing in the > end and the rights of the author. > > > If this is wrong, then, > > could you please let me know the right questions to ask myself? > > I don't know what the right question is? What is it you would like to > know? Here, I mean the free and open the same way I mentioned.
Why the split, FSF and OSI? OSI is free, but why FSF is not open? :( _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss