(estratto da wikipedia)
The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative to determine whether or not a software license can be considered open source. The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Bruce Perens.
Under the Open Source Definition, licenses must meet ten conditions in order to be considered open source licenses. Below is a copy of the definition, with unauthorized explanatory additions. There is a link to the original unmodified text below. It was taken under fair use.
- Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
- Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
- Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
- Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
- No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
- Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
- License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
- License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
- License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.
Open source is a development methodology, which offers practical accessibility to a product's source (goods and knowledge). Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations. Before open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; the term open source gained popularity with the rise of the Internet, which provided access to diverse production models, communication paths, and interactive communities.
altre info: The Open Source DefinitionE gia' che ci siamo:
(dal sito ufficiale)
OpenOffice.org is the leading open-source office software suite for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, graphics, databases and more. It is available in many languages and works on all common computers. It stores all your data in an international open standard format and can also read and write files from other common office software packages. It can be downloaded and used completely free of charge for any purpose.
Build your business around OpenOffice.org 2. If you're in the IT business, OpenOffice.org 2 can mean good business for you. The flexible word processor, powerful spreadsheet, dynamic graphics, database access and more meet all the requirements for an office software package.
Use OpenOffice.org 2 to add value for your clients, free of licence costs and onerous licencing conditions.
3 commenti:
per mantenere la neutralita' del post la discussione la apro qui..
Quindi in soldoni in base alla mia semplicistica visione delle cose:
Se un programma e' a pagamento non e' open source.
Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
sold e' il passato di vendere
d
Sicuramente sono ottuso... ma a noi interessa l'implicazione open source -> freeware (ovviamente non vale freeware -> open source).
Mettiamoci nel caso di software che vuole dichiararsi open source ma a pagamento.
1. "il software puo' essere venduto"
2. "il codice sorgente deve essere incluso o ottenibile gratuitamente" (altrimenti non sarebbe opensource... ovvio! chiaramente dopo che ti sei comprato il software, no? - lo dico diversamente: per essere opensource devi poter ottenere i codice sorgente, tu vendi il sw che ha in allegato il codice sorgente = opensource)
3. "sono possibili lavori derivati" (e vabbe'...)
4. "si puo' chiedere che i lavori derivati siano solo delle patch", cosi' se qualcuno vuole usare il tuo software deve comunque comprarselo e poi patcharlo
Gli articoli successivi non sono necessari per questo esempio (a mio avviso ovvio). Quindi dal mio (e non solo) punto di vista un sw open source puo' benissimo non essere free.
che poi io sia per il freesoftware e' un altro paio di maniche...
d
Posta un commento