Does open source mean software must be free?

tags:

open-source

views:

112

answers:

+3 Q:

Does open source mean software must be free?

Is there a difference between "open source" & "free open source" or open source means it's free? Can bought software with full source be considered "open source"? Grey area?

I see a lot of questions like "why do I have to pay money if it's open source"? or "free & open source..." as if there's "not free and open source..."

+1 A:

Open source does not mean free as in "no money". Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

k_b 2010-06-04 23:07:41

I might help to include a bit from your first link: "Free and open source software is an inclusive term which covers both free software and open source software which, despite describing similar development models, have differing cultures and philosophies. Free software focuses on the philosophical freedoms it gives to users while open source focuses on the perceived strengths of its peer-to-peer development mode."

Telemachus 2010-06-04 23:14:06

+2 A:

Do a search for "free as in beer" vs "free as in speech".

Ants 2010-06-04 23:08:09

+1 A:

Yes there is a difference.
To sum it up quickly, there can be four cases:

proprietary software you pay for, example: MS Office.
proprietary software that's free, example: Winamp (sorry, no better idea ATM).
open source software you pay for (usually for support and system updates only), example: Red Hat Enterprise, some hard-copy (CD) edition of otherwise no-cost software.
open source software that's free, example: Firefox.

Agos 2010-06-04 23:14:01

Proprietary but free, another example: Paint.Net.

Stephen Kellett 2010-06-04 23:56:51

@Stephen excellent example! Somehow my mind was stuck in 1995 :)

Agos 2010-06-05 00:15:30

+1 A:

Free and open source are two different concepts. There is free software that isn't open source (freeware, public domain, shareware, ad-ware, etc.) and there is open source software that isn't free (Red Hat, SUSE, and others sell enterprise versions of Linux). You could also have software that is technically open source by providing source code, but is released under a license preventing copying / release / etc. that a real open source license would provide (perhaps a developer toolkit where source is provided for ease of debugging, but a license is in place to legally prevent release of the code).

Nate 2010-06-04 23:20:41

As an example, the .NET Framework is released under the Microsoft Shared Source License, so you can look at the source code for your own debugging purposes, but you can't modify it, sell it, etc.

Juliet 2010-06-04 23:30:00

If you can get the source, then you can build your own copy, so it's financially free. Simple.

If the source has been retained by the owner, then it may or may not be financially free, depending on their wishes.

blissapp 2010-06-04 23:24:59

How is that? Buying commercial software with source is not financially free. I got the source, I can build my own copy. But it's NOT free. (Telerik controls is an example)

Tony_Henrich 2010-06-05 04:03:15

You had to pay money to get the source, granted. But now you can build as many financially free copies as you wish.

blissapp 2010-06-05 07:54:07

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Does open source mean software must be free?

related questions