open source/free software/freeware definitions

[Darren]

I believe there is some confusion out there when it comes to the proper
usage and defintions of the terms open source, free software and freeware.

I was wondering what term is becoming more of the norm, open source or
free software? I believe these two terms mean basically the same thing.

Freeware on the other hand has a different definition. I see the home of
alt.comp.freeware is www.priclesswarehome.org which has a very basic
defintion of 'freeware'. In alt.comp.freeware newsgroup there are many,
many programs that are recommended and reviewed which are actually 'open
source' or 'free software' programs and I was wondering why these
defitions cannot be found on www.priclesswarehome.org.

Thank you,

Darren

 

[Michael Laplante]

I believe there is some confusion out there when it comes to the proper
usage and defintions of the terms open source, free software and freeware.

Oh man, you do not want to go there with this ng. 95% of us know what WE
mean when we talk of freeware. We don't argue or even talk about it amongst
ourselves cuz we're too busy collecting it or recommending it. There's
another 5% who will split hairs up the yin-yang about what is freeware and
insist on telling the group at large what THEY think consititutes freeware
even though the rest of us don't care. They are also the ones who attract
the trolls about 95% of the time. . .

Wait for it. . .

M

 

[Darren]

I'm not trying to 'split hairs', just trying to get straight what SHOULD
be straight-forward accepted defintions but is not the case. I'm not
necessarily saying contibutors here don't know what they mean when they
talk about freeware, but the confusion 'out there' is generally great
when it comes to the terms I mentioned. As far as I can see the
defintions are quite different.

I'm just trying to learn and if this isn't the newsgroup to do so I
don't know where is. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Thank you,

Darren

 

[burnr]

I believe there is some confusion out there when it comes to the
proper usage and defintions of the terms open source, free software
and freeware.

I was wondering what term is becoming more of the norm, open source or
free software? I believe these two terms mean basically the same
thing.

Freeware on the other hand has a different definition. I see the home
of alt.comp.freeware is www.priclesswarehome.org which has a very
basic defintion of 'freeware'. In alt.comp.freeware newsgroup there
are many, many programs that are recommended and reviewed which are
actually 'open source' or 'free software' programs and I was wondering
why these defitions cannot be found on www.priclesswarehome.org.

Thank you,

Darren

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Free software is not the same as open source. Some free software is open
source and some is not.

 

[GL]

I'm not trying to 'split hairs'

No! You're a troll trying to start a flame war.

just trying to get straight what SHOULD
be straight-forward accepted defintions but is not the case.

Read the definitions at http://www.pricelesswarehome.org

I'm not
necessarily saying contibutors here don't know what they mean when they
talk about freeware, but the confusion 'out there' is generally great
when it comes to the terms I mentioned. As far as I can see the
defintions are quite different.

In here the definitions are understood, so the only one confused is YOU!

I'm just trying to learn and if this isn't the newsgroup to do so I
don't know where is.

'out there' from whence you came.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

Your accusations offend everyone!

 

[Susan Bugher]

I believe there is some confusion out there when it comes to the proper
usage and defintions of the terms open source, free software and freeware.

I was wondering what term is becoming more of the norm, open source or
free software? I believe these two terms mean basically the same thing.

Not quite.

Freeware on the other hand has a different definition. I see the home of
alt.comp.freeware is www.priclesswarehome.org which has a very basic
defintion of 'freeware'. In alt.comp.freeware newsgroup there are many,
many programs that are recommended and reviewed which are actually 'open
source' or 'free software' programs and I was wondering why these
defitions cannot be found on www.priclesswarehome.org.

ACF's focus is on cost - Freeware and "almost" Freeware (Donationware,
Liteware, Registerware, free for personal use etc.) - not open source or
"Free Software".

This is my understanding of "Free Software" vs. open source vs.
Freeware. I'm sure someone will be along to correct me if I err. . .

"Free Software" must satisfy certain licensing requirements. It is
always open source but you may have to pay for it. It's free as in
"liberated", not free as in no cost. See "The Free Software Definition"
here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Open source simply means the source code is available. It may or may not
be Freeware or "Free Software".

Freeware per ACF means no monetary or non-monetary costs. Freeware is
not necessarily open source or "Free Software".

There is a *brief* mention on the Pricelessware "about" page that open
source and licensing info may be noted in the program descriptions. See:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/about2005PL.php

and then take a look at the Program Index page:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/PL2005ProgramIndex.php

A few examples:

ActivIcons is Freeware but not open source or "Free Software".

Cygwin is Freeware and open source but (AFAIK) not "Free Software".

AutoHotkey is Freeware, open source and "Free Software" (GNU GPL license).

Susan

 

[xemonerdx]

Darren wrote:
This is my understanding of "Free Software" vs. open source vs.
Freeware. I'm sure someone will be along to correct me if I err. . .

Your wish is my command...

Cygwin is Freeware and open source but (AFAIK) not "Free Software".

Care to elaborate on why it isn't "Free Software"? The Cygwin folks
themselves feel it is: http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_1.html#SEC4

Why the parentheses around "Free Software" btw? It's not a dirty word


XemonerdX

 

[Susan Bugher]

Your wish is my command...


Care to elaborate on why it isn't "Free Software"? The Cygwin folks
themselves feel it is: http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_1.html#SEC4

I stated that "AFAIK" (as far as I know) it isn't (it was the first open
source app I saw that didn't have a license noted). The last thing in
the world I'm trying to do is set up as an expert on "free software".

Is GhostScript (Freeware) (open source; AFPL or GNU GPL) "free
software"? According to this GNU page an AFPL license is not a "free
software" license:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense

<q>
Aladdin Free Public License

Despite its name, this is not a free software license because it does
not allow charging for distribution, and largely prohibits simply
packaging software licensed under it with anything for which a charge is
made.
</q>

I don't know if the folks at Aladdin agree with that opinion or not. . .

Why the parentheses around "Free Software" btw? It's not a dirty word

Those words have more than one meaning. I used quotes to show I meant
"free software" as a specialized term.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[xemonerdx]

Is GhostScript (Freeware) (open source; AFPL or GNU GPL) "free

software"?

GhostScript AFPL isn't, GhostScript GNU GPL is. Both versions are
freeware & open source, only one is Free Software. And I can only
assume the people at Aladdin agree (or at least understand) that AFPL
is not Free Software, otherwise they wouldn't have created that license
to begin with (and submitted it to the Free Software Foundation to
review) *and* offered a version under the GNU GPL license as well (the
most recent GS version is always AFPL btw, never GNU GPL). IMHO
ofcourse, and no disrespect meant in any shape or form towards Aladdin.

Sorry to have taken this this far, I didn't mean to troll or anything.
I don't want to start another GPL flamewar, this isn't Slashdot nor am
I a GPL-zealot, haha... Initially, I just wanted to point out that
Cygwin is indeed Free Software, that's all

XemonerdX.

 

[Susan Bugher]

software"?

GhostScript AFPL isn't, GhostScript GNU GPL is. Both versions are
freeware & open source, only one is Free Software. And I can only
assume the people at Aladdin agree (or at least understand) that AFPL
is not Free Software, otherwise they wouldn't have created that license
to begin with (and submitted it to the Free Software Foundation to
review) *and* offered a version under the GNU GPL license as well (the
most recent GS version is always AFPL btw, never GNU GPL). IMHO
ofcourse, and no disrespect meant in any shape or form towards Aladdin.

Sorry to have taken this this far, I didn't mean to troll or anything.
I don't want to start another GPL flamewar, this isn't Slashdot nor am
I a GPL-zealot, haha... Initially, I just wanted to point out that
Cygwin is indeed Free Software, that's all

I appreciate your clarifying Cygin's status. I know that anything with a
GNU GPL license is "free software" - with other licenses or a mixture of
licenses (such as Cygwin has) I'm not always certain.

Since you're not a GPL zealot I'll add that I think the *meaning* of
"free software" would be much easier to grasp if the zealots said
"program XXX has a free software license" rather than "program ZZZ is
free software".

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)