Winpdb - A Platform Independent Python Debugger The State of Free Software
It is easy to identify a Free Software project. It includes the term “Free Software” in its website. Open Source projects created by corporations, by hackers who reject the ideals of Free Software or by developers who do not know the difference NEVER include the term.
Some notable Free Software projects are therefore:
http://www.debian.org/
http://www.gnome.org/
http://kde.org/
There are of course many others and please comment with your favorite ones, but in fact, if you try to think of a recent notable FOSS project and check out its website you are most likely to find it is an Open Source project rather than Free Software.
For example, Apache, Lighttpd, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Python, Django, Drupal, Firefox and others.
For those of you who wonder what the difference between Free Software and Open Source is, I recommend the following article: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
There can be several reasons why this is the state of Free Software. I believe one of them is that there is no economical energy behind Free Software.
Whether something is Free Software has nothing to do with its website, or the philosophy, goals, ulterior motives, political party, sexual orientation or hair color of its authors. It depends soley on the restrictions placed on using the software: its license.
Postgresql is under a permissive BSD/X11-style license, which places no restrictions beyond “leave the copyright notice in” and disclaiming warranty. Software licensed in this way is free software. This is not a matter of opinion; if you don’t think Postgres is free software, you don’t understand free software at all.
Your sort of thinking derails free software, turning it away from ensuring people have the freedom to use and modify software, and turning it into a mindless holy war against the Open Source infidels. It’s a detriment to Free Software.
Sigh…
It is so depressing when people write such nonsense, ignoring or not bothering to understand whatever is that they wish to comment on.
No one said there is difference in terms of licensing. Free Software is not a product (software), it is a social movement.
“The Free Software Foundation considers the Apache License, Version 2.0 to be a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL.” [http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html]
This would seem to cover Apache web and their other projects.
I also see that the revised BSD license as well as the Mozilla Public License is on FSF’s sight, so that covers Lighthttpd, PostGreSQL, Django, and Firefox.
Drupal’s core is GPL v2, and the plugins are on a per module basis, so I don’t know what you were getting at with that project.
Also, Ubuntu only installs Free Software by default (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing). They allow restricted software, but the end user must accept this. Its your choice.
If in doubt, check the FSF’s listing of licenses considered compatible with GPL at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/.
“The following licenses qualify as free software licenses, and are compatible with the GNU GPL.”
BTW, you do remember the FSF giving Guido van Rossum an award for making Python’s license free, right?
It would seem that you are actually declaring that anything NOT using the GPL doesn’t meet YOUR criteria. Next time, do a little research, okay?
Greg,
Are you saying that Open Source and Free Software are identical because they are often associated with the same licenses?
I don’t think the award was given to Guido “for making Python’s license free”. In fact the award does not directly mention licensing at all. However, it was given to him half a year after Python’s license was made compatible with the GPL.
Python is repeatedly defined at it’s website as Open Source rather than Free Software and I suppose it is deliberate. This simply means the Python Software Foundation people do not wish to identify Python with Free Software.
Maybe it makes sense to them. They define the software according to its license, not according to the values of the people who create it. The result is a convenient common denominator. Open Source is a development method for software and is a neutral term.
So I would say that projects like Debian openly use the term Free Software to make a statement, while projects such as Python avoid that statement deliberately.
i am with you nir. There is lots of us. Dont ever give up. Even if some lobots will not get what you are saying. Your work is needed and welcome. But you probably do not need this verbal help, i think you deep inside know you have no other choice but to pursuit Love, Wisdom and Freedom.
Here are my 2 dollars to the discussion (they are worth cents now):
Opensource == Freedom and Power to developers and service providers. Gives them power to be more effective. Opensource thinks that software marketplace will provide best for users. It is modern development methodology. Opensource often is an *ASTROTURFING* operation.
Free Software == Freedom and Power to (end)users. Gives them power to break all limits, to use the computer in a way they need. It is social movement with a goal of sharing freedom, knowledge and power.
And for anonymous/Greg: read the mentioned article. there is a text about your argument:
“….Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our criterion also considers whether a device will let you run your modified version of the program….”
If you fail to read mentioned article and then you flame in this way, you deserve to be labeled as an ‘useful idiot’ working against Freedom.