Definition of Free Software and Open Source

[Mark Wielaard]

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell <at> gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 14:02, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > ``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price.  To understand
> > the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as
> > in ``free beer.''
> 
> Yes, if you define liberty as being restricted...
> 
> No definition of free or liberty but the unique FSF version can make
> that understandable.

Since I am not a native English speaker, and my native language does have
word that expresses "Freedom" which isn't similar to "Gratis" I don't have
so much trouble with the word Free. Don't get all hung up about the word
Free, Libre, Livre, Vrij, etc. In the end it is about the freedom to share
and the freedom to protect our community. See the following video from Mark
Webbink, Deputy General Counsel for Red Hat. It explains how this works.

http://www.redhat.com/magazine/006apr05/features/licenses/

The term "Free and Open Source Software," or FOSS for short, has come to
represent software that falls under one of two definitions: the Free Software
Definition of the Free Software Foundation, or the Open Source Definition of the
Open Source Institute. These licenses differ slightly, but they agree
fundamentally on three freedoms:

    * The freedom to copy
    * The freedom to make derivative works
    * The freedom to redistribute

There are many open source licenses of various kinds, and all of them agree
absolutely on the nature of the first two freedoms. But the third
freedom—freedom to redistribute—is trickier. Two prominent licenses, the GNU
General Public License (GPL) and the Berkeley Software Distribution License
(BSD) differ on this key point. Mark explains the implications of these
differences, and why they matter.

Cheers,

Mark