what's the difference between open source and freeware

thetourist

what's the difference between open source and freeware - i have an idea like isnt freeware a free program owned by an individual or company and isnt open source the same but where the source is open to everyone who wishes to change it and bring out a slightly different version

but what is the difference for the average guy in the street who is using it .... none ... am i correct ??

and what if i own a magazine and want to include software on the cover disk - are there any real differences between the procedure for including one or the other


thanks

rogue-entity

There is a difference. Freeware as you said is software that is freely available. Freeware can be open source or closed source, as long as it is freely available.

OpenSource software is just the collective term given to software that the source code is available for. Linux and BSD unix are both Open Source but they have very different licences. Linux is licenced under the GPL which means that the origional software and any derivitive works or modifications have to be also released under the same licence. This prevents someone like me from creating another OS and then using the linux kernal, modifying the kernal and then making the entire lot closed source. I would have to provide the source to the kernal and any modifications to it, but I could close the source of the rest of the OS as it would be my own work.
BSDs licence allows anyone to do anything with it and not re-release the source, so MS could include BSDs networking stack and then close the source to it as long as they provide a copyright notice.

Opensource software can be commercial, but the source code has to be provided, or made available to anyone who requests it.

democrates

rogue-entity wrote:

Freeware as you said is software that is freely available. Freeware can be open source or closed source, as long as it is freely available.

In freeware the source absolutely MUST be available if it is redistributed.

A modified version can be used privately and there is no requirement to publish the source code. If you distribute a modified version you must also make available the modified source. This stops people from changing one line of code and privatising the result, it remains in the commons.

You cannot distribute freeware, modified or not, as closed source.

If you wish to collect an existing bunch of GPL programs and stick them on a cd on a magazine the simplest option is to create a seperate directory for sources and include them there. You can charge as much as you like in return for compiling and distributing such a disc, magazine or not, but you cannot charge for the use of the software. Any person who gets your disc full of GPL software is also free to distribute copies with sources free of charge or at any price they like and you have no claim on that.

Check out the GPL FAQ in your case the distribution questions.

As for Open Source licences, some have similar constraints to the GPL on source availability and other things and are thus deemed to be GPL-compliant. Others are not so you'd need to read each one to understand it's particular conditions.

Duffman

Freeware is free as in beer, open source is free as in speech.

aidan_walsh

democrates wrote:

In freeware the source absolutely MUST be available if it is redistributed.

You seem to be confusing the terms "freeware", and "free software".

democrates wrote:

A modified version can be used privately and there is no requirement to publish the source code.

This little "problem" will be "fixed" in GPL 3.

democrates wrote:

If you wish to collect an existing bunch of GPL programs and stick them on a cd on a magazine the simplest option is to create a seperate directory for sources and include them there.

Not quite. The source doesn't have to be distributed with the binaries, so probably the simpliest option (and one followed by many) is simply to include a link to the page on the website where the source can be downloaded.

democrates wrote:

You can charge as much as you like in return for compiling and distributing such a disc, magazine or not, but you cannot charge for the use of the software.

This is not entirely true. You are allowed to charge people for free software, but if you use the license you must make the source available.

democrates

aidan_walsh wrote:

You seem to be confusing the terms "freeware", and "free software".

Right enough, that was sloppy, I should limit my references to free software or software distributed under a GPL-compliant licence, I've gotten out of the habit in talking to IT procurement people, if you are too prickly about the GPL terminology and insist on explaining it they seem to find it a turn-off and conclude you are a raving anti-commercial leftie more interested in pushing free software than meeting their needs. We'll get there eventually, meanwhile it's a delicate dance.

aidan_walsh wrote:

This little "problem" will be "fixed" in GPL 3.

I recall RMS referring to the private use of modified free software, giving online apps as an example, it will be interesting to see how the final wording affects ISP's selling hosting packages based on a modified version of Linux for example.

aidan_walsh wrote:

Not quite. The source doesn't have to be distributed with the binaries, so probably the simpliest option (and one followed by many) is simply to include a link to the page on the website where the source can be downloaded.

In fact you're supposed to make sources available on a physical medium by mail order. I know, it sounds a bit quaint but there it is.

From the mag distributors point of view, now you're into hosting as well, or must have a positive arrangement with a host to keep the sources matching the binaries you've distributed available. The wrinkle is that the sources need only remain available while you are distributing binaries, so if the cd goes out once on a magazine the sources need only be available for little more than the shelf life of the mag, so for a mag which presumably has an online presence, should be no biggie.

From my experience of recompiling while setting up dev workstations and servers I find it easier to have the sources and binaries together on a distro cd for example, though it's a reasonable point that most end users never touch sources and online copies will do most people, I doubt many exercise their mail order option.

aidan_walsh wrote:

This is not entirely true. You are allowed to charge people for free software, but if you use the license you must make the source available.

If you don't use the GPL or compliant licence then surely you're not distributing free software. Are you thinking of some special cases involving dual-licenced software? I think the point still stands, and to generalise further, when distributing a disc full of GPL software you can charge for distribution of binaries and/or sources but once they have it you can't charge them for using, viewing the source, modifying, or redistributing the software. Sound right?

aidan_walsh

democrates wrote:

I recall RMS referring to the private use of modified free software, giving online apps as an example, it will be interesting to see how the final wording affects ISP's selling hosting packages based on a modified version of Linux for example.

Surely will.

democrates wrote:

From the mag distributors point of view, now you're into hosting as well, or must have a positive arrangement with a host to keep the sources matching the binaries you've distributed available. The wrinkle is that the sources need only remain available while you are distributing binaries, so if the cd goes out once on a magazine the sources need only be available for little more than the shelf life of the mag, so for a mag which presumably has an online presence, should be no biggie.

From my experience of recompiling while setting up dev workstations and servers I find it easier to have the sources and binaries together on a distro cd for example, though it's a reasonable point that most end users never touch sources and online copies will do most people, I doubt many exercise their mail order option.

My head hurts. I follow, but my head hurts.

democrates wrote:

If you don't use the GPL or compliant licence then surely you're not distributing free software. Are you thinking of some special cases involving dual-licenced software? I think the point still stands, and to generalise further, when distributing a disc full of GPL software you can charge for distribution of binaries and/or sources but once they have it you can't charge them for using, viewing the source, modifying, or redistributing the software. Sound right?

Right, I follow now. Think I fell into the trap that most other people do (I hope ).

democrates

aidan_walsh wrote:

Right, I follow now. Think I fell into the trap that most other people do (I hope ).

If so I've probably done so more often, and hopefully will again. It's one of the reasons I like boards so much, I've learned a lot from reading posts including your own and pitching in my tuppence-worth now and then and getting feedback, it's great for refining.

professore

democrates wrote:

In freeware the source absolutely MUST be available if it is redistributed.

Surely you mean GPL; freeware is free, if source is included, great, if not, so what. My take is that freeware is more like public domain software.

ishnid

katrien_ie wrote:

Surely you mean GPL; freeware is free, if source is included, great, if not, so what. My take is that freeware is more like public domain software.

That's different again.

If it's public domain, anyone can do whatever they like with it, without restriction.

Freeware usually refers to proprietary software that's made available free of charge.

Free software is a different concept, and is what democrates was actually talking about (rather than freeware), as aidan pointed out.

Open source software is software for which the source code is available. All free software is also open source but that doesn't necessarily operate the other way around.

professore

ishnid wrote:

That's different again.

If it's public domain, anyone can do whatever they like with it, without restriction.

Freeware usually refers to proprietary software that's made available free of charge.

Free software is a different concept, and is what democrates was actually talking about (rather than freeware), as aidan pointed out.

Open source software is software for which the source code is available.

Agreed.

ishnid wrote:

All free software is also open source but that doesn't necessarily operate the other way around.

Don't agree - in my experience most programs labelled as freeware are closed source.

rogue-entity

Here are some examples to illustrate the points above.

Freeware: Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, openSuSE, Firefox.
OpenSource: openSuSE, Firefox, Suse Linux Enterprise Server, DansGuardian
Commercial Software: WindowsXP, Suse Linux Enterprise Server, Photoshop
Free Software (GPL): Linux, Apache
Free Software (BSD): BSD Unix.

So as you can see Freeware covers all software proprietary or not that is freely available without charge, in practise though all freeware is proprietary.
OpenSource, is just software where the source code is available regardless to weither or not it uses a GPL licence.
Commercial software can include Open Source software, so not all open source software is free, for most people, the paid-for versions will be more useful as they will provide support as well.

The difference between the BSD licence and the GPL licence is rather big, even though both licences are used for open source software.

GPL software stops users from creating modifications and distributing them commercialy under a different licence, although they can change licence conditions if they own the copyright.

BSD software allows people to do with it whatever they want including incorporating it in commercial products without a requirement to make the source open and available provided that the derivitive works contain the copyright notice for the origional softwares author.

MS Windows uses the BSD TCP stack in its Windows 2000 and Windows XP OSs

Capt'n Midnight

It depends on the license and unless the SW uses a generic license you would have to evaluate each individually.

TBH: I would not include any stuff on a cover disk unless the license was in a text file you could see before running the install. In many cases this would mean you installing the SW and exporting the license / help about.

Shareware is entrapment - IMHO any product that states a 30 day trial period should cease to function then as allowing it to run after that criminalises the user, if they haven't bought it during the trial then they probably won't afterwards if they can keep using it. WinZip would be the classic example here. Also any trial product MUST have extremely well written uninstall routines because the expectation is that it would be removed later on. A lot of Shareware fails miserably in this regard. So all in all I'd avoid putting Shareware on coverdisks unless it is a well respected program for which there isn't a better free replacement for, like paint shop pro.

Some patches have more restrictive licenses than the original SW or at least giving more freedoms to the supplier than the user - next time you apply a M$ patch / service pack have a good look at what you are agreeing to !

spyware blaster is freeware , but have a look at the clause on getting updates. Many microsoft utils are freeware but very closed source - some require you to have a valid OS license before you can use them, so you could not use on WINE , again if there is such a clause it's hidden in the license

The sony rootkit is freeware, and they even save you the trouble of reading the license and in some cases install even if you click no ! ( this has just gotta break the license ) Just waiting for some chancer to out a virus that pops up an OK notice and then try to sue the users for agreeing to pay for it and distribute it. [ does displaying this idea stop someone patenting it ? ]

Open Source or at least my understanding of it means you can recompile it for your own use without charge. You can't pass it off as your own and you generally have to open source dervitive works (cf. sony rootkit). copyright gives you ownership of your bit of the code for Life +70 years. The first copyright expired computer software should be available from 2010 onwards but that's only if any of the codebreakers back then died during the war, and it isn't an official secret.

/RANT

democrates

rogue-entity wrote:

Free Software (GPL): Linux, Apache

Interesting crease on apache license v2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
" Please note that this discussion only benefits third parties that produce GPL-covered products." Thank God.

ishnid

katrien_ie wrote:

in my experience most programs labelled as freeware are closed source.

Indeed! That's why I differentiated between "freeware" and "free software"