Freeware, as defined by FSF, may or may not be open source. source code has nothing to do with a software being freeware or not. Freeware is just about cost. How did you conclude so categorically that a software has to be without source code for it to be called freeware?
You are entitled to hold your opinion, Alex, but you are still missing the point.
FSF does not equate freeware with either open source or free software. In contrast, it’s making an especial effort to distinguish the three terms.
Freeware != Open Source != Free Software.
Freeware = Available at no cost (thus free as in beer).
Open source = Software for which the source code is publicly available so that you can see and study it but specific license may restrict what you are allowed to do with that code.
Free = The laxest of licensing schemes. The code is open source and, moreover, you are also allowed to freely modify it and redistribute it. Remember, it may not be free as in beer (like freeware) but usually is.
I don’t think that’s what the OP is saying. At least that’s not what I read in it.
We all have to make a living. So if I make my work open source, that doesn’t mean I can’t ask money for it. Or, I could even give it away for free, and ask money if someone needs customization, or support, or whatever.
Free (as in free beer) is only free if someone else pays for it 
This whole thread, no mention of “free as in speech” vs “free as in beer”???
The entire reason why those phrases exists is to remove the ambiguity of the word “free”. Or try to make it simpler.
Opera is free to use. Its source is not open. They own the code and they alone (for the most part) develop it. Why I’ll never be able to run NoScript on Opera, unless Opera decides to open its source to the NoScript developers, and then also if the NoScript guys decide to make a version for Opera.
Off Topic:
Opera’s code makes a lot of use of free code. Well, I dunno about “a lot”, but the Perl code they use is free as in both speech and beer, under either Artistic License (which I never understood but Larry’s a strange guy sometimes) or GPL (any version).
“Open Source” means the source code is not encrypted, so any developer can work on the code freely
That isn’t quite right. Open source refers to code released under an open source license, not the nature of the software.
“Free” means there is no charge to download and use the software
Again, I think that when you refer to OS software, you are referring to software under an OS license. In this case “free” means freedom, not free of cost.
In both cases, there are typically costs associated with the software for the user
Typically is a little strong? Every app I have running at the moment, including the operating system, is open source, free of cost, and free as in freedom.
Basically it has nothing to do with the readability of the source code, it’s about the license that accompanies it.
I was making reference to the phrase “open source”, which means the source code is accessible to a developer.
But that’s not what it means :P. I think you’re trying to say that just because someone can read your code, that doesn’t make it open source. And in addition, just because something is open source, does not make it free (of cost).
Free, with respect to OS, is as in freedom, or free speech. If a person is released from prison and says “I’m free”, it has nothing whatsoever to do with cost. However, by nature, most OS software is free of cost as well.
So I guess the points of confusion could be
- Open source does not simply mean the source is available/readable
- Free is not always used in terms of cost
At least that’s how it works to the best of my knowledge.
PS. it’s not an endeavour, I’d hate to have to go back to windows as primary platform (but yes I do use it still)
^unless it’s that watered down stuff some people call beer : )
dvduval, do you really think most people don’t know what the words “open source” mean? (as in the availability of source code) I would give the general audience a bit more credit (though most people don’t know what a browser is so perhaps I’m giving them too much credit), the term open source doesn’t describe the open source ethos (as in free as in freedom, not free as in speech) but in that regards, you seem to have missed the point entirely (no offence intended).
Firstly, it’s wrong to claim that closed source code is “encrypted”, the term encrypted has always referred to a way of cyphering information in such a way that it cannot be read by people who do not have the permissions. While on the surface it may seem an accurate description there’s no depth to the idea. Closed source is simply the resulting compiled application without the source code along with it, you wouldn’t call GIMP an encrypted application would you? Yet when people download just the binaries (because they don’t want to contribute to the code) it would be (under your use of the term). The fact that you can edit an application that’s compiled using a resource or hex editor goes further to dispel any assumption that encryption comes into it.
If you’re going to argue the term “free” it’s worth pointing out that in every case, open source software is more free than freeware. While freeware may have no cost associated (and some open source projects do), the restrictions of license (open source licenses are a LOT more relaxed), the restrictions of maintenance, and the restrictions of being able to upgrade the program are of such complexity that you are tied into the choices of others. As for the free software having limitations, this is another faux term, freeware (as per the description) is free to use without limitation or requests to upgrade. You seem to have steamrollered over the whole software industry by whacking free projects with a single stick. If a project is free to use but has the option to donate to the project… it’s donationware, if the project is free to use but is a limited version of a larger project (with requests to upgrade the product) it’s nag-ware or a demo (depending on how aggressive it is) and if the project is free to use but it has a lot of obtrusive requests to upgrade to a bigger version it qualifies as shareware (in the traditional model of being able to use the product freely with potential cost - rather than the idea of try then by commercialware). And in your GMail example… that is not freeware (as you implied) but adware… as in the product is offered with no “price” cost but one of supported advertisements to pay for the product. As a software developer I’ll clearly draw a line under the types.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the current and most popular way of monetising open source software is offering both the product and the source code without cost to the public but charging for support. Thereby if you’re willing to cover the learning curve on your own, you can play and use the product with no restrictions but the premium support help-desk makes money to keep the project going by helping those learning to make use of the product (perhaps in either support calls, training materials, tutorials, etc). I’ve always been a fan of this model as it leaves all the benefits with little of the effects.
This is the key point which you need to understand dvduval, the open source licenses (there are quite a few of them) specify that the freedom is derived from the ability to “do with it as you wish” once you get the product. Think of “freedom from slavery”, you’re not restricted to the wishes of the original author and their intent to keep the product supported, you can write new versions, start your own project based on the source code, you could resell the product, you could view the code (for fun and learning) you can distribute it (as long as the license permits it) and you can contribute to the project (if the author supports community involvement). The cost itself is irrelevant, as you stated everything has a cost with it, whether time or money, trying to highlight the two of them in terms of cost is totally the wrong way to go about it because there’s little to no difference between them in that respect. The freedom comes in the flexibility of the licensing model, and the availability of the source code, nothing more. Don’t use monetary costs to define open source or free software. And both freeware and open source have benefits.
Excellent post DV, that’s a topic that really does need discussing to clear up the confusions many people seem to have.
@AlexDawson
I appreciate your comments, and I don’t mind at all that you have objections to some of my premises. You are very correct in saying that I completely overlooked “donationware”, and I do apologize for that. We actually started that way, and we reached a point where we needed other ways to have enough revenue to provide proper support.
I think depending on the type of software, and the goals, the differences can be striking. One that I am familiar with is phpBB and vBulletin. For the most part, they are both open in their source, but phpBB is free, while vBulletin is not. I would argue that the development and support of vBulletin has far exceeded that of phpBB. Now is that because vBulletin charges and phpBB does not. That, I cannot say for sure, but that is my assumption.
With regard to closed source and encryption, I think you did a much better job explaining this, and I appreciate that. Nearly all the work we do is PHP, so we are not compiling, so thanks for explaining more about that. In PHP, generally people encrypt to protect the source, and I may have mistakenly assumed they were “closing” the source by doing that, so my use of terms may not have been completely correct.
So I have to say that even after having been in this industry for a few years, I still have a lot to learn myself! “Always a student” is my motto.
I was making reference to the phrase “open source”, which means the source code is accessible to a developer. And of course, the opposite would be “closed source” or “encrypted” meaning a developer could not easily access and alter all or part of the code. As for licensing, there are all shapes and sizes.
Not sure I understand what you mean, but usually I assume “free software” is free to download and use, though it is not uncommon to have “limited” freedom such as needing to pay to unlock features or remove advertising.
Not everybody runs Linux or freeBSD from their desktop. But hats off to people who do. I think it is a worthwhile endeavor. I’ve done this too a few times, but unfortunately I have limitations such as needing to duplicate the environment of my customers so I can help them with issues.
Well, this is where it gets confusing to a lot of people. You can have source that is open or readable that is free, or that requires payment for licensing (especially software for websites or servers). You can have free software that has a license and is closed or encrypted. And to further complicate this, there can be licenses where the software is sold encrypted, and then more expensive “developer licenses” where the source is open or readable by developers.
So what I am getting at is that when you interchange “free” and “open source” you can confuse a lot of people, and they don’t always refer to the same thing. Overall Hash, you make some great points, and add yet another level of complexity when you differentiate running software from an OS versus on a website or server. And I recognize that even as I use some of these terms, my definition may be different than what you have observed say in a linux desktop environment, and that is why I am glad we can have this discussion so people can see differing viewpoints, and hopefully know the right questions to ask when they encounter these terms in the future.
This is getting too much into details that’s “free”. It’s like complaining about free beer… free beer always taste the best!
Well sorry but just because the FSF says they define something “as” such doesn’t make it law, I still say it seems absurd to me to quantify open source into the freeware analogy. Maybe other’s wont agree with me in that respect, maybe they will, but I’m certainly not accepting the definition set out by the FSF.
It doesn’t necessarily mean you can contribute, you can alter it and create a new work under that same license (often this depends on the license).
Red Hat has a community product called Fedora which is free.
So I can’t download that until I pay them but then can contribute?
Open source is so much easier when it’s free.
Red Hat Linux?
What’s an example of an open source project that isn’t free?