Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19
Originally Posted by Santa's little helper Regarding the GPL I believe that when it was created the term OSS did not even exist.Anyhow the question is a bit philosophical. I ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496

    Quote Originally Posted by Santa's little helper
    Regarding the GPL I believe that when it was created the term OSS did not
    even exist.Anyhow the question is a bit philosophical.
    I see it differently. Forget philosophy, let's do black-and-white definitions. What does "Open-Source" mean? To me (and you're welcome to disagree) "open-source" simply means that the source code is made freely available for a program when it is distributed. The GPL is an "open-source" license because it not only allows this, it requires that the source code be made freely available upon distribution.

    I don't want to get into whether the GPL is considered a "free software" license because there are many different definitions of "free", only one of which is "no cost".
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by techieMoe

    I don't want to get into whether the GPL is considered a "free software" license because there are many different definitions of "free", only one of which is "no cost".
    It's a lot more simple than that, GPL actually even copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation:
    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

    Version 2, June 1991

    Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
    51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

    Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
    of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
    Sure, it serves OSS as well, but it's still the official and copyrighted Free Software license

  3. #13
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by techieMoe
    I see it differently. Forget philosophy, let's do black-and-white definitions. [snip]
    The GPL is an "open-source" license because it not only allows this, it requires that the source code be made freely available upon distribution.
    But that's what I'm saying , there is no black and white definition for "is".
    It depends on the context.Same goes for free software or open source software.
    The people who have used the last two terms in this thread have not used them
    in their common sense meaning but in their "official" meaning so to speak
    with regards to software philosophies.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #14
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by Santa's little helper
    But that's what I'm saying , there is no black and white definition for "is".
    It depends on the context.Same goes for free software or open source software.
    The people who have used the last two terms in this thread have not used them
    in their common sense meaning but in their "official" meaning so to speak
    with regards to software philosophies.
    Ok. You've "officially" lost me.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  6. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,120
    To bring this back on topic, "a thing" wrote:
    "Barring the GPL license, it is probably the most important piece of writing to come out of the Open Source movement in my view."
    Ehh... the GPL was meant to be a free license, not an open source license.
    ... and he's right.
    GPL did not come out of the Open Source movement but out of the Free Software movement(FSF) who even copyrighted it.
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

  7. #16
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by jens
    ... and he's right.
    GPL did not come out of the Open Source movement but out of the Free Software movement(FSF) who even copyrighted it.
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
    Ok. So this whole messy business has been about which "movement" the GPL came from? Are we all loopy? Who CARES?! The point I was trying to make was that regardless of who originally authored it, the GPL is an open-source license, and just happens to have been approved as such by the OSI. *sigh* On that note, I'm bowing out of this. So much ado about nothing.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  8. #17
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by techieMoe
    Quote Originally Posted by Santa's little helper
    But that's what I'm saying , there is no black and white definition for "is".
    It depends on the context.Same goes for free software or open source software.
    The people who have used the last two terms in this thread have not used them
    in their common sense meaning but in their "official" meaning so to speak
    with regards to software philosophies.
    Ok. You've "officially" lost me.
    Although you said you have lost interest in the topic I think it's good
    practice to make myself understood so I'll try and do that.

    The discussion is whether "GPL is FS" or "GPL is OS".
    The meaning of these phrases is not as clearcut as saying
    for example "the sky is blue".It depends on what exactly
    one means by "is" or "FS" or "OS".So you posted
    To me (and you're welcome to disagree) "open-source" simply means that the source code is made freely available for a program when it is distributed.
    This is the "common sense" definition I was talking about.So my point was
    that up to that point the discussion wasn't about the "common sense"
    definitions of OS or FS but the specialized definitions as exemplified in
    the writings of the respective websites and supporters of each philosophy.
    Or at least that's how I think thing and jens were using the terms and
    that was how I was using them.So my ultimate point (finally !) was that
    you weren't really responding to the previous comments but you were saying
    something new.

    Hope that explains it :P

  9. #18
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    575
    Oh and regarding who cares perhaps whoever is going to mark firefly's essay
    cares.Or perhaps Richard Stallman would care.Not that I expect him
    to come here or anything but just out of respect.

  10. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,120
    lol
    Well, it's not that unimportant.
    Being the property of FSF also means only they can change the GPL(and I personally trust them the most)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •