Usuário:LuellaHenderson551
De BISAWiki
The Wikipedia Encyclopedia describes open check here as practices in production and development that promote access to the end products sources Before the label open source was coined developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept In fact earlier researchers used a process which is similar to open standards to develop telecommunication network protocols Characterized by contemporary open source work this collaborative process led to the birth of the Internet in 1969 Its application to software gained popularity with the emergence of the Internet It is said that the open source label came out of a strategy session held at Palo Alto California in reaction to Netscapes announcement that it planned to release the source code for its browser Navigator
The politically correct version is that to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word free so that the perception of free software is not anticommercial the label open source contributed by Chris Peterson stuck The official version is that it was to shed the confrontational attitude that had been associated with free software in the past and sell the idea on pragmatic business case grounds to the commercial world Whatever it may be Netscape listened and released their code as open source under the name of Mozilla That was the beginning of the contemporary open source movement whose main champion today allegedly is the Open Source Initiative OSI which makes and continues to make a case for the open source software to the commercial world Consequently we have seen the application of the open source philosophy in other fields including biotechnology Linus Torvalds a finnish software engineer who initiated the development of the Linux kernel went as far as saying the future is open source everything
According to the OSI the case for open source software is simple free access to read redistribute and modify the source code of a piece of software results in a rapid evolutionary process that produces better software Advocates of open source argue that when programmers can read redistribute and modify the source code for a piece of software the software evolves People improve it people adapt it people fix bugs And this can happen at a speed that if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development seems astonishing
However evangelists of free software have been at pains to clarify that open source software is not synonymous with free software The philosophy of the open source movement is based on practicality and not ethical considerations while free software is based on freedom not price Borrowing from Richard M Stallman free software and open source describe the same category of software more or less but say different things about the software and about values While the two are not synonymous both have a common enemy proprietary software
Critics of open source say that open anchor fosters an ambiguity of a different kind in that it confuses the mere availability of the source code with the freedom to use modify and redistribute it But open source doesnt just mean access to the source code; the use of opensource software must comply with a number of criteria including as to redistribution depending on the license under which it is distributed Different licenses require different criteria For instance under the GNU General Public License GPL published by the Free Software Foundation FSF for licensing free software any work based on the program or any other derivative work must be licensed as a whole at no charge at all to all third parties under the terms of the GNU GPL whereas an Apache License does not require derivative works to be open source You can add your own copyright statement to modifications of a source code under Apache License and provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use reproduction or distribution of your modifications or for any derivative works as a whole provided your use reproduction and distribution of the work otherwise complies with conditions of the Apache License Similarly there is no requirement that any derivative work created under an Academic Free License AFL or a Berkeley Software Distribution BSD License should be distributed at all or for free if distributed Further any derivative work need not be free and one can charge for it as you would for proprietary software
The subtle licensing criteria between open source generally and free software is further highlighted when you consider that some licenses are not compatible For instance programs/source code distributed under PHP License is not compatible with GNU GPL since GNU GPL is a copyleft license Which raises a couple of licensing issues
1 Why are there different criteria under different licenses for open source software? Presently there are about 54 licenses certified by OSI as open source a tribute to OSIs philosophy which many now see as an unnecessary proliferation of licenses an issue that forced OSI to admit that
OSIs approach on the development and distribution problems involved building as many different bridges as possible between developers and the corporate world In doing this we accepted a proliferation of new licenses This is a problem in that although physical bridges between communities dont interfere with each other licenses do Interference between different opensource licenses is now perceived as a sufficiently serious problem that OSI has become as a victim of its own earlier success
To address the issue of proliferation OSI plans to take all existing OSI approved licenses and group them into three tiers i preferred ii recommended but not preferred and iii not recommended This is likely to create more confusion One would then ask why an OSI certified license would be OSI not recommended license Would a not recommended tag not be deemed as deapproval though OSI says its not It would be preferable not to have certified such license as OSI approved in the first place
2 Why are some licenses not compatible with others? We may well appreciate that compatibility goes beyond the issue of license proliferation For example the FSF considers all versions of the Apache License incompatible with Version 2 of the GNU GPL About version 20 of the Apache License they say
The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require We dont think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL
Apache Software Foundation ASF which publishes the Apache License has adequately replied to FSFs statement stating that ASF does not share the same goals as FSF For the time being the controversy rages on Compatibility is really a relationship issue; free software movement and the open source movement can be likened to two political camps within the free software community While it can be argued that GNU GPL is not compatible with a number of licenses because the philosophy behind GNU GPL is freedom which proponents of free software have cried themselves hoarse from the rooftops for decades now GNU GPL itself publishes a list of free/open additional hints software licenses that are GPL incompatible distinguishing between noncopyleft and not strong copyleft Even copyleft licenses like xinetd have also not been spared and was held incompatible because it places extra restrictions on redistribution of modified versions that contradict the redistribution requirements in the GPL Dont they share the same goals? Yet the free software movement has complained that to be lumped together with open source software is restrictive for free software since open source software allegedly has a much weaker criterion than free software Then one may ask what is the criteria for determining compatibility with GNU GPL even for copyleft free software licenses? At least FSF is not intending to classify licenses in the same manner as OSI for now
