Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Matt Maier blueback09 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 1 20:01:33 EST 2016


Unless Livecode modified the GPL it's still a Free software license,
written and interpreted by the FSF. Calling it Open Source is more
colloquial, and clearly doesn't cause problems in the vast majority of
cases. But, in this case, the inaccuracy is causing the confusion.

It's worth noting that most of the repositories in Github don't have any
license at all. That's not colloquial, that's just lazy, but that also
doesn't cause a problem in the vast majority of cases. Still, when there is
a problem the only way to resolve it is to be more specific.

I feel like it's important for people working through the nuances of FOSS
to understand the intent behind the different licenses. It can be
disorienting to think that everybody is just sharing stuff and then to run
into the seemingly harsh restrictions of the Free software subset. Open
Source is pretty inviting. Free places stick limits on who is invited. It's
confusing to people who haven't studied it because "open source" literally
means open up the source from which the object was derived. However,
"free/libre" doesn't mean make it as free as possible, it means make it
impossible for anyone to ever make it un-free. So the "free/libre" label
actually brings along MORE restrictions.

Livecode picked a Free software license for the Community edition,
signaling that they want their community to adhere to the intent of Free
software. Part of the reason (not the whole reason, but part of it) I
upgraded to Indy was so that I could cast off the restrictions imposed by
the intent of Free software.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com>
wrote:

> Matt Maier wrote:
>
> > Robert, as you conduct your research you should also learn about the
> > difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. In brief,
> > Free Software does special things for moral reasons; it is "right"
> > that software be liberated. Open Source Software does special things
> > for pragmatic reasons; it is "useful" that software be easy to use
> > without asking permission.
>
> While that accurately reflects the motivations of Richard Stallman and
> others who create and promote "Free software" as they've described in their
> own writings, motivations are separate from outcomes.   Whether I buy
> flowers for my wife because I think she's pretty or because I'm trying to
> apologize, either way the florist makes $60. :)
>
> It's fully possible for others to enjoy the same outcomes without the same
> philosophical motivation.
>
> All carp are fish, but not all fish are carp, and not all who choose the
> GPL are quite as religious about it as others, or see it as any sort of
> moral imperative at all.
>
> For myself, and many I know, the GPL is a purely practical means to an
> end:  a good choice when one wants to share code both directly and also
> downstream.
>
> I participate in many software projects, and some of the choose GPL.  As
> much as I admire Mr. Stallman personally and professionally I disagree with
> his view of a moral imperative in choosing GPL.  But that disagreement
> doesn't prevent me from choosing it myself, or having enjoyed his company
> over dinner.  Vive le difference.
>
> Like the classical Chinese painting "Three Men at Tiger Brook", we can
> travel together even if we're adhere to different philosophies.
>
>
>
> > The GNU General Public License (GPL) is not an Open Source license,
> > it is a Free license. For reference, here is the Free Software
> > Foundation's stance on Open Source
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
> > "...a license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users
> > of a program."
> ...
> > It doesn't help that Livecode always uses the term "Open Source" when
> > referring to the Community Edition. This could easily (and does) lead
> > people to assume the Community Edition has an Open Source license. It
> > doesn't, so if you're looking for pragmatic terms, rather than
> > idealistic terms, you're going to be confused.
>
> With all due respect to both yourself and Mr. Stallman, what you wrote
> there is correct in terms of his very specific language preferences but not
> necessarily reflective of common usage.
>
> We have a bug in the English language:  we have only "free", but Latin has
> "gratis" distinct from "libre".
>
> So when we refer to "free software", we often have to add
> "free-as-in-freedom" or "free-as-in-beer" to distinguish what we mean.
>
> It's quite true that Mr. Stallman has said many times that he feels Eric
> Raymond's efforts to promote "open source" are misleading, and perhaps even
> "immoral", and strongly prefers "free" to distinguish GPL-governed works.
>
> It's also true that when I say "Ubuntu" Mr. Stallman would prefer (and not
> entirely without good reason) that I say "Ubuntu GNU/Linux".
>
> But that's what happens with language:  where phrases are cumbersome they
> evolve into more casual colloquial forms over time.
>
> Today "open source" is often used to describe all software whose source is
> both available to the recipient of the software and where modification is
> explicitly allowed.
>
> It can sometimes be more correct to distinguish between GPL-style licenses
> and other more permissive licenses, but in common usage the more frequent
> distinguishing phrase is "copy-left" for GPL-style terms, those with strong
> downstream inheritance.
>
> The bigger distinction is between proprietary licenses on the one hand and
> the full range of free/open licenses on the other.  So while the
> distinction between "free" and "open" licenses can be useful in specific
> contexts, I see no mistake in using "open source" as a more generic
> superset of free/open licenses.  Indeed, I see it used that way every day
> by a wide range of authoritative writers (no doubt to the annoyance of Mr.
> Stallman, but hey, colloquialism happens).
>
> --
>  Richard Gaskin
>  Fourth World Systems
>  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>  ____________________________________________________________________
>  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>



More information about the use-livecode mailing list