"Open source software" is more like a "Public house" (also known as pub). It's public, so you can go inside free, but it does not mean that you can do whatever you want to do. There are certain rules you have to keep, otherwise you "free" to go :-) For example here in Ireland you not supposed to smoke inside. If you want to do that you have to go out - and as you not supposed to drink outside we have the "Don't drink and smoke" rule. Other countries have different rules with public houses, so if you go abroad you have to study those if you do not want to be in trouble. You have to study the license of the open source software as well. (Open as you can see its source) You have to keep those rules in order to legally using it. If you use Olin's code, you have to agree whatever he says. If he let's you see the source, that software is definitely open, if does not, it's called closed or proprietary. If he let's you use it free, then it's free as well. But I doubt if you can do with that source whatever you want to do - even GPL does not let you do that. Many people involved in developing software for free of charge just because they learn a lot on these, but they do not want you to "steal" their work. Other people like Olin wants back some money for their time pushed into it, and for their other costs - quite understandable, and still you can learn a lot from their work, I really appreciate it! Tamas On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Mark Rages wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Olin Lathrop > wrote: > > Mark Rages wrote: > >> The GPL is only concerned with copying. It doesn't address how you > >> use the software once you have it (compiling it, linking it against > >> other software, etc.) It only addresses distribution. > > > > But distribution is one of various uses of source code, so the GPL does > > restrict how it can be used. > > > >> While your software is open source in the sense that the source code > >> is available for reading, it does not meet the Open Source > >> Initiative's definition: > > > > So? I don't remember them getting ordained the Official Keeper of the > Open > > Source definition. The Open Software Foundation puts restrictions on > what > > you can do with their source. > > You are confusing OSI ("open source" people), the FSF ("free software" > people), and the OSF (which isn't really "open" at all, like you > pointed out.) > > I am not interested in arguments over the GPL. I am just trying to > correct what I read as misleading statetments. > > > I think some of them are rather onerous and > > actually hurt the wide accessibility of software for end users. They do > > this because they have a particular agenda they want to push. The widest > > accessibility of software for end users isn't their goal. I agree they > have > > the right to put whatever restrictions on their software they want, as > does > > the owner of any software, but I totally disagree that they have some > sort > > of moral high ground and get to define what "open source" is. > > The FSF and Richard Stallman are quite clear in what they are trying > to achieve. They are concerned with the freedom of the software user, > not the software itself. > > >> Therefore is not "open > >> source" in the accepted usage of the term. > > > > We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't accept their definition > of > > "open source", nor do I agree that their exact definition is accepted > usage. > > Was the term in common use before the OSI was founded in 1998? I > believe their PR popularized the term. > > Regards, > Mark > markrages@gmail > -- > Mark Rages, Engineer > Midwest Telecine LLC > markrages@midwesttelecine.com > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- Rudonix DoubleSaver http://www.rudonix.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist