On Thursday 11 December 2003 22:31, Oron Peled wrote: > Two fixes (for an otherwise correct and focused answer) and some > additions. > > On Thursday 11 December 2003 16:43, Oded Arbel wrote: > > In addition to the important distinction between open source software and > > free software ... > > The distinction you refer too is between the two ideologies (about *why* > this software is needed). The software itself is practically the same as > both the open source definition and the free software definition gives > the same rights.
Not exactly. you seem to refer to GNU's notion of open source, a notion I did not mention. Open Source is software that has the source available (freely or for a charge) but it does not infer that the software itself is free. for example, software distributed under the Aladin so called "Public License" is open source - you get the source and are allowed to tinker with it and fix it for your own purposes, but it is not free you are not allowed to redistribute it and are forced to resubmit your changes to the copyright holder. > So as far as technical/economical merits are concerned, open-source > and free software are the *same* (and correctly bundled as a single > acronym -- FOSS). I beg to differ. -- Oded ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
