Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 16th Sep 2002 06:48 UTC, submitted by Cesar Cardoso
Red Hat "We see the desktop as only a piece of the entire operating system product; integration must extend beyond the desktop. We also believe that users care most about functionality and integration rather than the underlying technology. For these reasons, we have created a single desktop look and feel for Red Hat Linux rather than maintaining two unrelated configurations." Very good stuff over there from Owen Taylor, the Red Hat Desktop Team member.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Free Software / Open Source
by Spark on Tue 17th Sep 2002 14:47 UTC

Well, I don't think it's very smart to say "I would always use this or that license for my software". To a degree this simply depends on what you want to do. For example a Mozilla released under BSD wouldn't be a good idea. Some company could take the code (like Microsoft) and create Internet Explorer 7, that can do everything that Mozilla can and even more. Result would be that Mozilla wouldn't have the slightest chance to compete with IE.
The same applies to operating systems. Just look at FreeBSD, will it ever become popular? I can hardly imagine. Apple just took the code as a base for a new operating system, how could FreeBSD ever compete with this? No chance. This doesn't matter if you only care for improving computing in general, but it will always live in the shadow of proprietory software.
Free Software as in RMS isn't just about improving computing, it's about competing against proprietory software. And the only way to compete is to play fair by fair. "I can't use your code, you can't use my code. You can use my code, if I can use your code".


"Open Source spirit is when a software is developed openly using a license approved by the OSI, and the source code being freely available. Free Software is where the source code would always be present in any deviration work"

Actually I don't see any difference in the philosophies. Look at the third point of the OSI definition:

"3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

Combine this with the 1. and 2. point (source must be included and freely distributable) and you get exactly what the GPL is. Of course the OSI also includes licenses by the BSD, but you will also find this at gnu.org as a Free Software license. While Stallman thinks that GPL-style is superior in most cases (which I agree with), he completely aknowledges that BSD code is free and a gift to everybody (unfortunatly also to Stallman's enemies, that's probably why he doesn't love it ;) ).

So although many people confuse this constantly (stating YaST would be Open Source, etc), it is actually not true. There is no technical difference between Open Source and Free Software, the only difference is the term and what advantage is presented to the people. Open Source is about
pushing the bazaar development model and advantages like enhanced security to convince companies to release or develop their software as Open Source. The term Free Software makes it more clear that the freedom of software is the important thing.

Personally, I think it doesn't matter if you are a Open Source or a Free Software person (that's why I use both terms whenever I feel like it). The only thing that matters is that we are pro Open Source/ Free Software, which is basically the same. The reason _why_ we support it should be everyone's choice. Some people will enjoy the security, some the freedom to choose what they like, others simply the fact that everything comes for free, etc. We shouldn't argue about our motives, if we basically all want the same (of course I'm only talking about Open Source/ Free Software people now ;) ).