> ************ pprreeaammbbllee:: ffrreeee ssooffttwwaarree ************ ********** tthhee mmeeaanniinngg ooff ooppeenn aanndd ffrreeee ssooffttwwaarree aanndd ddaattaa ffoorrmmaattss ********** bbyy TTiimmoo ""BBllaazzkkoo"" BBooeewwiinngg,, _m_a_i_l_@_n_e_v_e_p_r_i_s_e_._d_e VVeerrssiioonn::0.01, 2002-03-06 >This article discusses the importance of free software for our daily work and fun. > ******** TTaabbllee ooff ccoonntteennttss ******** * _1_._0_ _i_n_t_r_o_d_u_c_t_i_o_n o _1_._1_ _d_e_f_i_n_i_t_i_o_n_:_ _c_l_o_s_e_d_ _s_o_u_r_c_e_ _a_n_d_ _n_o_n_-_f_r_e_e_ _s_o_f_t_w_a_r_e o _1_._2_ _d_e_f_i_n_i_t_i_o_n_:_ _o_p_e_n_ _s_o_u_r_c_e_ _a_n_d_ _f_r_e_e_ _s_o_f_t_w_a_r_e * _2_._0_ _e_v_a_l_u_a_t_i_o_n o _2_._1_ _n_o_n_-_f_r_e_e_ _/_ _c_l_o_s_e_d_ _s_o_u_r_c_e o _2_._2_ _f_r_e_e_ _/_ _o_p_e_n_ _s_o_u_r_c_e > ************ 11..00 iinnttrroodduuccttiioonn ************ _>_ _t_o_p_ _o_f_ _p_a_g_e Most probably you are reading this with your www client, the browser, straight from the internet. You know the net: www, email, irc and much more. You have the choice of different tools to work with all these standards and are also able to create them on your own, for example a website using HTML. HTML - for example - is an open standard; it can be created with any text editor, the specifications are public and you have the choice between several clients (e.g. _M_o_z_i_l_l_a, _K_o_n_q_u_e_r_o_r, _G_a_l_e_o_n, _O_p_e_r_a, _L_y_n_x or _I_n_t_e_r_n_e_t_ _E_x_p_l_*_r_e_r).> You also know that the www is very huge, nearly everyone has his pages up there. The web would not be what it is today if all would base on closed specs. These open standards have driven all, cos everyone can do it, without having to pay patent licenses and that. To anticipate a prominent prejudice: free software is not defined by its financial costs, free software can cost you money. The meaning of free software in short: free like in "freedom" and not like in "free beer". ********** 11..11 ddeeffiinniittiioonn:: cclloosseedd ssoouurrccee aanndd nnoonn--ffrreeee ssooffttwwaarree ********** _>_ _t_o_p_ _o_f_ _p_a_g_e Non-free software is normally developed by a private enterprise or organization. There are employees that are payed for developing software or doing research. This software is solde to the public but only in binary form.> As a consequence of not having the sources and specs, you cannot: * modify the product to fit your purposes * do bug fixes * enhance security * check it for security leaks or even troijan stuff ********** 11..22 ddeeffiinniittiioonn:: ooppeenn ssoouurrccee aanndd ffrreeee ssooffttwwaarree ********** _>_ _t_o_p_ _o_f_ _p_a_g_e Open sources and free software is commonly developed by more than one company, it is often developed by a so-called community. However, the characteristics of free software can be described as follows: * bases on public standards and systems * can be received source and (almost always) additionally in binary form * can be customized, enhanced in any way: o additional features o bug fixes o security improovements (kinda bugfix, uh?) * it can be veryfied for security holes and other problems * normally, non-free stuff cannot be derived from it * often cost-free, but not a must ************ 22..00 eevvaalluuaattiioonn ************ _>_ _t_o_p_ _o_f_ _p_a_g_e Following, a brief and kinds subjective argumentation on non-free vs free software. ********** 22..11 nnoonn--ffrreeee // cclloosseedd ssoouurrccee ********** _>_ _t_o_p_ _o_f_ _p_a_g_e Supposed you have read _1_._1, you know the basic characterists of non-free software. As a consequence, there are the following consequences: * besides security affairs, closed sources are developed by a small amount of people; time is money, thus there happen few code reviews (if at all), so that performance and common code quality is often poor * closed software and data formats can be used as a tool to gain monopolism; other developers have to pay license fees or may not use their formats at all; the public depends on the corporation developing the original * privacy: you do not know what information exactly is exchanged to others, especially in networked environments Cos you have few possibilities to be actively involved in development, you may post bug submissions or feature proposals and wait and pray for that features to be implemented. Regarding the "monopolism" issue, you may throw into discussion that it is absolutely okay if a good product or standard is honored, cos many time and money flows into development and employees. But i think that especially standards are developed in public, so that a corporation should earn their berries by providing better software (the implementation part thus) and services.> That's like with HTML: the standard is public and worked out by several corperations and orgs but the implementations are done by the firms themselves. And it is no must to give away these products for nothing. ********** 22..22 ffrreeee // ooppeenn ssoouurrccee ********** _>_ _t_o_p_ _o_f_ _p_a_g_e Basically, the disadvantages of non-free software are the advantages of free software, so i will not mention them all.> However, many people often say that free software is not as stable and feature-rich as their non-free opponents. I think this really applies for very young projects. But as history has shown, well-managed projects grow in quality and functionality. If professional developers are involved in the work, existing code is reviewed and bugs are fixed, and that not only by the core team developers but from people from all over the world who can get the sources and review these. Some good examples for free software / tools with no claim for completeness: * _t_h_e_ _M_o_z_i_l_l_a_ _p_r_o_j_e_c_t * _L_i_n_u_x * _G_N_U_ _t_o_o_l_s_ _a_n_d_ _s_y_s_t_e_m_s * _G_N_O_M_E * _T_h_e_ _K_ _D_e_s_k_t_o_p_ _E_n_v_i_r_o_n_m_e_n_t_ _(_K_D_E_) * _N_e_t_B_S_D * _F_r_e_e_B_S_D For my very personal experience, there is no need to use non-free software. It is not about beeing stingy but it is about supporting the right ones. I do not want to support parties that think of their software as the Holy Grail and demand unfair licence fees and keep their stuff closed to establish tight customer bindings and use their products for politics instead of letting the highest quality stuff win.> And like said, it is not about ruining the business, cos free software must not be for no cost. Commonly, closed tech also gets patented. Latest issues as seen on _S_l_a_s_h_d_o_t revealed to what these politics can lead. On the one hand, there are some patents you can only laugh of (e.g. all-day processes that no one thinks of have been patented), on the other hand serious problems arise from patends: they hinder private developers or little firms to create own software making use of common but patented tech or data formats. As a consequence, only the bigger corporations can afford the development and consequencing financial success.> As the past _R_A_N_D discussion of the _W_3_C revealed, the future of the www would be in danger if patended tech may get into important future standards. Well, just imagine you had to pay license feess for every viewed HTML page of your web site... > _>_ _t_o_p_ _o_f_ _p_a_g_e > _C_o_p_y_l_e_f_t (C)2002 by _T_i_m_o_ _"_B_l_a_z_k_o_"_ _B_o_e_w_i_n_g. This document is licensed under the terms of the _G_P_L. > >