[OT] RE: [Israel.pm] Are we open source advocates ?

Shlomi Fish shlomif at iglu.org.il
Sun Jan 4 06:04:03 PST 2004

On Sunday 04 January 2004 15:34, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Sunday 04 January 2004 14:35, Offer Kaye wrote:
> > But just because Perl uses by default the Artistic License does not make
> > it any less open-source. It does perhaps make it less *free*, as in the
> > definition given by the GNU Foundation, but we were talking about
> > Open-Source Software here, not Free Software.
> A common confusion: Open-Source-Software and Free-Software defines the
> same class of software. They both give you the rights to:
>    - Use for any purpose
>    - Distribute for any purpose
>    - Modify and redistribute modification for any purpose
>    - Create derived work for any purpose

Actually, there's a small difference between the Open Source Definition and 
the Free Software Definition. Namely, some software that would qualify as 
open source won't qualify as free software. (but not vice versa). One thing I 
know is that software for which a user must redistribute modifications even 
if they were done for his internal use, is OSS but not free software.

Usually, it does not matter, because the vast majority of open source software 
out there is free as well. For more information refer to:


But as a general you are correct.


	Shlomi Fish

> The only difference is in ideology (or advocacy if you want):
>    - Free: because freedom (liberty) matters.
>    - OSS: because it "get the job done" better.
> So, like you said, maybe Baird is unknowningly an OSS advocate ("perl
> is exceptional"), but definitely not a Free-Software advocate.
> > ...
> (otherwise a good and clear replay)


Shlomi Fish      shlomif at iglu.org.il
Homepage: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

I don't believe in fairies. Oops! A fairy died.
I don't believe in fairies. Oops! Another fairy died.

More information about the Perl mailing list