"Open Source" versus "Free"

I think these two terms can be really confusing to people, both customers and webmasters. It’s time we had a topic that gets some of these issues out in the open!

“Open Source” means the source code is not encrypted, so any developer can work on the code freely. Open source software is not necessary free. A license may be required to use the software.

“Free” means there is no charge to download and use the software (though the definition of free can vary widely). Sometimes free software can be encrypted. Sometimes free software can have limitations, and you have to upgrade to a “premium” version.

In both cases, there are typically costs associated with the software for the user, whether that be time or money. For example, there may be a cost for acquiring a license for open source software, but then you get free support and installation. Or the software might be free, but getting free support might not be so easy, and then there is a cost associated with support. Often software companies charge for the software so they can offer good support.

Sometimes software can be open source and free, but again there is a cost associated with using any software. Even something like Gmail is free, but they serve up ads and offer a premium version (and to the best of my knowledge it is not open source). Or something like Wordpress is free and open source, but if you need unbranded templates or help with customization, there will surely be a cost associated with the software. Or something like vBulletin is mostly open source, but not free, yet they offer great support.

So to recap…

  • “Open Source” means the source code can be accessed and edited, but it not necessarily free.
  • “Free” Software may not be open source, and may have other costs or premium upgrades

Finally, I just want to comment that we have always been proponent of open source software, as it allows for the most innovation and freedom. But every software developer has to develop a model that allows people to make money through their work, and that’s a good thing because they are motivated to make the software better. Some companies make the download free, but make money after the sale in customization or premium upgrades or advertising. Other companies get money up front for a license, and then offer free support or additional free features.

ROFL. Indeed he does.

This thread was a bit cit and dry for me from the get-go because I never had much confusion as to the specifics of Open Source Software or Freeware in the first place. Though, it was still an interesting read.

You think wrong.

I think what anyone can take away from this whole discussion is that applying a label of “open source” or “free” to any particular software only a braod indication of the ability to use the software.

It is kind of like labeling individuals as “liberal” or “conservative.” On any given issue, those two individuals may agree or disagree, and their positions may even be reversed from what one would expect from the labels.

I have clients who believed that “open source” meant “free” (because the software was royalty-free) and used it in developing commercial software. When I pointed out the requirements that accompanied the “free” open source software, particularly the requirement that any modifications they made (which were substantial) be released as open source under a similar license, they decided that the “price” they had to pay for the “free” software was too high.

Ignore the labels, or at most use them for general guidance. Read the license agreement instead.

Well said Green Moon. I have to agree that once you hear one of these terms, the next thing you need to do is ask some questions. It is not “cut and dry”. The terms can mean different things to different people, and the usage can vary depending on the platform or environment.

I think open source is always free in terms of cost but may be not free to use as you like.

Just read this thread.

My head hurts. :injured:

Well, Alex, I request you to exercise some restraint and do a bit of research henceforth before calling someone blatant, factually incorrect, and misguided.

Freeware is only defined to mean free as in beer. It isn’t defined to mean free as in speech. Freeware are always free as in beer. They can also be free as in speech but this is not a precondition. Free and Freeware are two entirely different aspects of software.

as long as it isn’t my source that’s open :stuck_out_tongue:

And there it is, happy thoughts versus reality in the wild. What is intended versus what actually happens.

So if open source modules are coming with a license that says “when you release this code you must allow it to be just as free” when it’s being used as part of code that is proprietary, that’s a problem.
The lawyers haven’t figured this out yet, the various countries haven’t figured this out yet, and it hurts open source. It hurt programmers when they decide it’s safer to reinvent the wheel by writing code that’s already been written but only available under one of the open source licenses.

Isn’t this a case of shooting yourself in the foot (to protect your nose :|)

From the OPost:

Finally, I just want to comment that we have always been proponent of open source software, as it allows for the most innovation and freedom. But every software developer has to …

I think those two combine nicely: open source is great - as long as it isn’t my source that’s open :stuck_out_tongue:

Did you read past the head line?
They don’t say anywhere that OS must be free as in ‘free beer’ as some stated it before. As stated in the GNU/GPL license, which is one of the licenses that meet the OSI standards:

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.

I encourage friends to use “open source”, but they generally don’t know what source is. Come on :stuck_out_tongue: if you know what source code is, surely you can make the jump to the difference between open source and readable source?

For those who know AND those who don’t it’s mostly a distinction without a difference. Let us not forget the time honored tradition of obfuscating open code – encryption of a sort.

It’s free. And the guys in the executive suite making the decision for OS don’t care what else. Sure, you can make the security arguement, but few care. Having someone in a tech support role to yell at they care about, so you can charge for that. Schools, government, business: It’s FREE …and then there’s some sort of other stuff.

Don’t expect your friends to have any different motivation. The excuses for OS only tend to cloud the motivation – not much different from what’s driving torrenting. Make no mistake, unless they – themselves – have forked the code, free is all that motivates them.

Nobody, even software people with technical degrees, understand the implications of open source. And this thread is vapid political correctness without them.

What can you do with open source you can’t with compiled code? You can do THIS.

Productivity. Code reuse. Management. Powered by SEARCH.

I’d go into more, like specialized forks. But that might take another ten pages of “Tastes Great. Less Filling”

Hash: It’s not that hard (I agree)… let me present to the audience… Open Sauce. :smiley:

I had no idea this was such a confusing area :eye: I encourage friends to use “open source”, but they generally don’t know what source is. Come on :stuck_out_tongue: if you know what source code is, surely you can make the jump to the difference between open source and readable source?

This is what it means when you say open source.

Alternatively, this is what it means when you can read the source (eg js - you can’t hide that source).

Quite simply: it does not matter who can read your source, the license determines what can be done with it. Free of cost has no bearing, however with OS it is a predominant side effect.

That gives me a migraine! We’re yet again reducing the term “free” to two distinctly different definitions and using them both in equal measure to describe the same thing. Please people, stop using “may” and “free” with contradictory definitions as it’s going to just confuse everyone further. Calling Drupal Freeware is WRONG, one of the main components of the freeware licensing model is that it’s both without cost and without source code. Thereby you can’t just dump open source and freeware in the same sentence, it’s blatantly and factually incorrect. Ironically I guess dvduval was right in that we do need something for people to understand the differences between the various licensing models… the only problem is it seems to be staff that are firing in the wrong direction :lol:

Well…

Open Source Beer project

Free Beer 4.0 The recipe and branding elements of FREE BEER is published under a Creative Commons (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5) license, which means that anyone can use the recipe to brew their own FREE BEER

As noted previously, the term ‘free’ in the open source lexicon refers to ‘free as in speech’ and not as in ‘free as in beer’.

When a software is open source, you can download its source code and study it and also modify it. When open source software is free you enjoy certain additional liberties in terms of how you can use the source code. For example, you could not only study and modify it but also copy it and redistribute it in modified or unmodified form. For practical reasons, being open source is a precondition for being free but opposite may not be true. A software can be open source but the degree of freedom could still be severely limited. For example, Vbulletin ships with its source code which you can modify for yourself but cannot redistribute it either modified or unmodified form (I do know much about its license, I am just presuming). It could therefore be argued that VBulletin is open source but not free.

When a software maker doesn’t charge you for using it’s software, it’s called freeware instead. A freeware may not be open source and consequently not free. (like opera). Likewise a software could be open source but not freeware (like vBulletin) .

Some software can be both free and freeware - and preponderance of open source projects fall in this category. PHP, Java, Drupal etc. You can download them without paying a dime (freeware). You can also download the source code and study it (open source). Finally, you can also modify the source code at your will and redistribute it (free). This is in contrast to some software that are neither open source not freeware (like windows)

Thus ‘freeware’, ‘open source’, and ‘free’ are three distinct aspects of software. A very loose and generalized way to define these terms could be:
Freeware – free to use.
Open source – free to study the source code and modify it.
Free – Free to modify the source code and redistribute it.

There is absolutely a HUGE amount of discussion about how to deal with open source code and various licenses in the Perl community. Perl itself is released under the Artistic License, which as an average coder you can just assume “it’s free and I can do with it what I want”. Also under the GNU license, any version. This means if you distribute it, you state the license and keep it free. The problem?
When your company itself claims to own all of its own code. What then? You wrote custom Perl code using many open-source CPAN modules, not all of which even state which license they were released under. So if open source modules are coming with a license that says “when you release this code you must allow it to be just as free” when it’s being used as part of code that is proprietary, that’s a problem.
The lawyers haven’t figured this out yet, the various countries haven’t figured this out yet, and it hurts open source. It hurts programmers when they have to decide (or their managers decide) it’s safer to reinvent the wheel by writing code that’s already been written but only available under one of the open source licenses.

A rather nasty state of affairs sometimes.

Lets ask the Open Source initative what their definition of open source is:

http://www.opensource.org/osd.html

The first point is: “Free Redistribution”. So I’m not sure why you would suggest open source software would not be free.

Well my definition of freeware was forged a long time ago based on an ethos of describing the difference from freeware VS shareware by the Shareware Association and by extension not just the pricing point but the licensing terms which many people adhered to in respect to the restrictions attributed to the freeware model. But now I’m totally confused, if open source can be applied to Freeware as a term, are people to take the Free as in freeware to mean “free” of cost or come to expect also “free” as in freedom (provided by source code). By attaching the concept of open source to the term it’s adding confusion to the whole model. I know from talking to regular non-technical people that they see Freeware and Open source to be totally different things, beyond the whole price point the differences between the various “wares” used to have attributed values in terms of the usage allowances (like Demoware), it wasn’t just about cost. :frowning: