Shared Source vs. Open Source 393
leonbrooks writes "Microsoft are fond of touting Shared Source as being "as good as" Open Source, with a view to muddying the waters as much as possible, and so keeping as many people away from the benefits of Open Source Software (OSS) (particularly Software Libré AKA "Free Software") as they can.
This new article analysing the differences arrives just in time for Microsoft's Australia-wide series of "Competitive Hour" misinformation sessions on Open Source, and includes a handy list of potentially showstopper questions.
We'd like your help in putting these and other questions to the speaker during such misinformation sessions, with the dual aim of opening the eyes of many of the audience, and reporting back to us what was said so that we can refine the questions to close whatever loopholes are employed in evading these important issues."
Libre is without accent (Score:2, Informative)
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer (bero)'s article (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the "picking up your marbles" article uses nonstandard terminology and thus may end up confusing many readers. For example, it seems to equate "Free Software" with copylefting licenses (like the GPL), and "Open Source" with non-copylefting licenses (like the BSD license). That's extremely confusing; the standard definitions for both Open Source and Free Software include both the GPL and the BSD licenses. Also, "Shared Source" is still proprietary; trying to claim it isn't just confuses things. Proprietary software comes in at least two varieties: secret source, and "shared source". Licenses are confusing enough without using nonstandard, inconsistent terminology. Hopefully, the article will get updated - it makes interesting points, and the shifting terminology is unfortunate. For the moment, I would recommend Bero's article instead if you're looking for an article opposing "shared source".
Re:Libre is without accent (Score:2, Informative)
Opensource != Free Software necessarily. (Score:3, Informative)
The Free Software Foundation [fsf.org] has other values in mind.
The look on software as something everyone owns, ideas, science and so on. With free software you have the right to make changes that fits you, then release that source again with a new and (hopefully) better version. You of course have to include who originally wrote it.
A good example of Open Source and not free software is the NVidia drivers for Linux and not BSD. They are not licenced under GPL, you only have the right to compile the source, not make changes to it and redistribute those changes.
No, there's a standard definition for open source (Score:3, Informative)
Go to Google, and go search for "open source software". Google ranks pages, so it's reasonable to assume that whatever it finds first is the "dominant" definition of the term "open source software". The top rank is opensource.org, with the definition given at: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.ph p [opensource.org].
The first sentence in the material states:
"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code."
The lower-ranked pages agree with this definition, too.
I think it's clear that this particular phrase, "open source software", has acquired a very specific meaning, meaning much more than simply that the source code is viewable.
If you wish for a term meaning "I can see the source code", I suggest the term "source viewable." Peter Neumann suggests the term "open box".
An other way from the long dark past (Score:2, Informative)
This way dealing with source code has disappeared, except for some companies that supply code for library routines. Such source distributions disappeared for two reasons. One was piracy (it didn't help), and the other was to simplify the problem of support. As systems became for complex the fact that the software was modified would became lost, the original software creators would spend a large quantity of time and money discovering and fixing other peoples bugs (this did help).
Even with its problems, I always liked this format of source distribution. It gives a revenue stream to the creators of software, and at the same time is allows further develepment, and bug fixes.
Public Domain != Freeware (Score:2, Informative)
'Public Domain [public-domain.org] (AKA "freeware")- help yourself, there are no strings attached;'
According to convention, experience, common sense and the FSF Free Software Definition, [fsf.org] freeware is not public domain software. It is propriestary software distributed as gratis binaries without source.
Re:Libre is without accent (Score:2, Informative)
In french, libre also doesn't have accent.
Re:What the hell is this? (Score:1, Informative)
I kept collecting Linux distros and I had a not so recent SuSE Linux CDs. I have to tell you it was so good that it is the reason I'm posting this. Maybe all the hardware isn't going to be supported. But after trying Gentoo for several months and then Redhat 8.0, you suddenly realize how much time you are spending in doing configuration stuff.
SuSE is not entirely different but YaST has some good tools and although SuSE is a KDE Shop, Gnome works fine for me.
All in all, if you have all the experience that comes with Gentoo, and all the frustration of half baked distros from redhat, take a second look at those guys from Germany.
P.S: I sounded too much like a product representative so to ease things with myself, just find a friend who has SuSE and copy the CDs since that it's supposed to be legal anyway.
Have a lot of fun!