Personally, I believe that a proper distinction between free and open source needs to be made.
Software can be free, but not open source. (e.g. anyone can download the software, but they can't download the source) Software can be Open Source, but not free (This is rare, but can happen. You have to pay for a license to run the software, but you can view the source used to create it) Sofware can be both Open Source and Free (the best of both worlds) or Software can be neither free, nor open source, (the worst of both worlds; proprietary software) My two cents. -----Original Message----- From: maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org [mailto:maemo-developers-boun...@maemo.org]on Behalf Of Carsten Munk Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:30 PM To: maemo-developers@maemo.org Subject: Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free? Regarding definitions of free vs non-free in Extras regard: http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras#About_Extras quote: Extras is split into two areas: * free applications are Open Source have been through the Maemo Extras vetting process * non-free applications are usually closed, binary only and their quality and security must be taken on trust This points to open source, not free software, which can mean either: * Loose definition of open source, which would mean everything with a open source that autobuilder can build from source code. And non-free being binary packages it can't/uploader doesn't want to reveal source code. or * The Open Source Definition , http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php (most likely) If we base seperation on OSD, then yes, it would go into non-free. If we base it on the first, then it can stay in free. It does have a buildable source package, so. Can someone find further discussion of what how seperation is supposed to be like? Maybe a worthwhile discussion for Council to get into as well, this particular license does say you are not allowed to redistribute the Mauku source code from maemo.org (or anywhere). My personal view would be seperating it at OSD definition as history shows us we might have to watch out for what software we distribute from maemo.org as it opens the community to C&D's. Regards, Carsten Munk/Stskeeps maemo.org distmaster 2010/1/26 Jeremiah Foster <jerem...@jeremiahfoster.com>: > > Hello, > > Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it looks pretty closed. > > https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7505 > > "I installed mauku from the maemo extras free repository, believing it was Free > Software, but trying to figure out which license it is under, I noticed there > is no license file at all, and file headers have the following message: > > /* Mauku 2.0 (c) Henrik Hedberg < > hhedb...@innologies.fi >> > You are NOT allowed to modify or redistribute the source code. */ > > The debian/copyright file also says this: > > Mauku 2.0 is NOT open source software. You are NOT allowed to > modify or redistribute the source code. > > I believe it should at least be moved to the non-free section, and stop > claiming it ships with a free license in its download page." > > > What should we do here? Move this to non-free? > > Thanks, > > Jeremiah > _______________________________________________ > maemo-developers mailing list > maemo-developers@maemo.org > https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers > _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
