Welcome to my Open-source software. Listen
You've probably heard of free software and open source. But what is it actually? And what are the differences between the two?
This publication is primarily intended for lay people, but also to dependent users titanic GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) who sell confidential data from users. For Frama soft, the association that promotes free culture, it would be "dégoogliser" Internet (see below) and make free knowledge sharing and knowledge, but mostly to give us independence. Free culture is a mindset, a worldview that would make us free individuals, autonomous and connected.
_The Free software (free software)
When we say that software is "free", by which is meant that it meets the essential freedoms of the user: the freedom to use, study, modify it and redistribute copies, modified or not. It is a matter of liberty, not price - think of "free speech" and not "free beer."
(Richerd Stallman, GNU, see full article)
A program is a free software if you, as a user of this program have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any motive (freedom 0);
The freedom to study how the program works, and modify it makes your computing as you desire (freedom 1); Access to the source code is an indispensable condition;
The independence to redistribute copies so you can assist your neighbor (freedom 2);
The freedom to distribute other copies of your modified versions (freedom 3); by doing this, you give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes; Access to the source code is a necessary condition.
The obligation that derives from these four freedoms is that the changes are necessarily under the GPL. This requirement that the GPL is sometimes called "viral" because it extends to the additions to the code. This "virality" of great importance, to the extent that it forces people who change free software to make their free modifications. In essence, it benefits from software components provided by the community, but what we built must also be donated to the community. This is the principle of free software, including Richard Stallman is the flagship.
Open source
Open source, including Eric Raymond, is a pillar, considers the virality of the GPL has no interest, and that it even tends to alienate businesses, who fear that their work becomes freely broadcast because they have built on the GPL licensed software. The open source movement considers that it is not necessary to use the virality of the GPL so it is necessary. Indeed, it is intrinsically better after them. That's why Eric Raymond recommends using licenses that are not viral (such as MIT / X11, BSD, and Apache licenses). Software under these licenses can be modified and redistributed without me having to provide the source code to users. On the one hand, companies may be more reassured, on the other they are not required to remit their contributions to the community.
Finally, the contrast between open source and free software is mainly due to the vision we have of the company. With an open source license, it will benefit the software companies that will provide a reusable and resalable source code to their customers, without "putting the pot." Conversely, with a free GPL license type, it is the user who has an advantage: it enjoys complete freedom of its software and reduces its dependence on suppliers. So what should you choose? It all depends on who you are and what project we speak. Personally, my experience tent to prove that if we do not force people to go to the community via the GPL, they are the least, and the system works less well.
The Mozilla project, for its part, is under triple license GPL / LGPL / MPL, the latter two allowing free code of cohabitation with a proprietary brick without having to make it free so far. Are you lost on all these licenses? Know that Wikipedia offers an excellent array of free licenses and their
attributes (which in turn is licensed under the GFDL, allowing to resume the content and modify it legally!)
So he must be the open source side and avoid viral licenses, or should be on the side of free and use the GPL?
I invite you to put your two cents in the comments.
https://www.blogger.com/home
You've probably heard of free software and open source. But what is it actually? And what are the differences between the two?
This publication is primarily intended for lay people, but also to dependent users titanic GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) who sell confidential data from users. For Frama soft, the association that promotes free culture, it would be "dégoogliser" Internet (see below) and make free knowledge sharing and knowledge, but mostly to give us independence. Free culture is a mindset, a worldview that would make us free individuals, autonomous and connected.
_The Free software (free software)
When we say that software is "free", by which is meant that it meets the essential freedoms of the user: the freedom to use, study, modify it and redistribute copies, modified or not. It is a matter of liberty, not price - think of "free speech" and not "free beer."
(Richerd Stallman, GNU, see full article)
A program is a free software if you, as a user of this program have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any motive (freedom 0);
The freedom to study how the program works, and modify it makes your computing as you desire (freedom 1); Access to the source code is an indispensable condition;
The independence to redistribute copies so you can assist your neighbor (freedom 2);
The freedom to distribute other copies of your modified versions (freedom 3); by doing this, you give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes; Access to the source code is a necessary condition.
The obligation that derives from these four freedoms is that the changes are necessarily under the GPL. This requirement that the GPL is sometimes called "viral" because it extends to the additions to the code. This "virality" of great importance, to the extent that it forces people who change free software to make their free modifications. In essence, it benefits from software components provided by the community, but what we built must also be donated to the community. This is the principle of free software, including Richard Stallman is the flagship.
Open source
Open source, including Eric Raymond, is a pillar, considers the virality of the GPL has no interest, and that it even tends to alienate businesses, who fear that their work becomes freely broadcast because they have built on the GPL licensed software. The open source movement considers that it is not necessary to use the virality of the GPL so it is necessary. Indeed, it is intrinsically better after them. That's why Eric Raymond recommends using licenses that are not viral (such as MIT / X11, BSD, and Apache licenses). Software under these licenses can be modified and redistributed without me having to provide the source code to users. On the one hand, companies may be more reassured, on the other they are not required to remit their contributions to the community.
Finally, the contrast between open source and free software is mainly due to the vision we have of the company. With an open source license, it will benefit the software companies that will provide a reusable and resalable source code to their customers, without "putting the pot." Conversely, with a free GPL license type, it is the user who has an advantage: it enjoys complete freedom of its software and reduces its dependence on suppliers. So what should you choose? It all depends on who you are and what project we speak. Personally, my experience tent to prove that if we do not force people to go to the community via the GPL, they are the least, and the system works less well.
The Mozilla project, for its part, is under triple license GPL / LGPL / MPL, the latter two allowing free code of cohabitation with a proprietary brick without having to make it free so far. Are you lost on all these licenses? Know that Wikipedia offers an excellent array of free licenses and their
attributes (which in turn is licensed under the GFDL, allowing to resume the content and modify it legally!)
So he must be the open source side and avoid viral licenses, or should be on the side of free and use the GPL?
I invite you to put your two cents in the comments.
https://www.blogger.com/home
No comments:
Post a Comment