PDA

View Full Version : The meaning of open source?



Colo2
March 28th, 2010, 09:14 PM
Hello
Could someone tell me the meaning of open source, because I am slightly confused

I was aware that it means that the source is open and available to everyone.

However, does it automatically mean that anyone can modify and re-distribute the software?

If so, how come Distros like redhat charge people for downloading the OS, then allow people to muck about with the source and potentially re-release it.

JDShu
March 28th, 2010, 09:22 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Red Hat makes money by charging for support, not the OS software itself.

jflaker
March 28th, 2010, 09:37 PM
Hello
Could someone tell me the meaning of open source, because I am slightly confused

I was aware that it means that the source is open and available to everyone.

However, does it automatically mean that anyone can modify and re-distribute the software?

If so, how come Distros like redhat charge people for downloading the OS, then allow people to muck about with the source and potentially re-release it.

OSS means that the underlying source that was compiled to create the OS or Application is 100% available for you to Download and modify to your liking...You can download the complete OS or application ready to run or the source and compile it.......

One of the common stipulations on modification is that your changes be made available to the community where those changes may become part and parcel to the next revision of said OS or Application. Unless, of course, your modifications were for custom hardware which would not be useful to the community.

What YOU are allowed to do with open source software you can't do/it is illegal to do with Commercial software...
--Download it at no charge
--Make it available to others (hard copies or peer to peer)
--Look under the hood and tinker with the code
--Use it in other software/package offerings
--Get upgrades ----->With commercial software, you report bugs and they are fixed, then you get the privilege to buy those bug fixes in the next version.
--Just to name a few

Colo2
March 28th, 2010, 09:40 PM
thanks :)

mickie.kext
March 28th, 2010, 09:49 PM
I was aware that it means that the source is open and available to everyone.

However, does it automatically mean that anyone can modify and re-distribute the software?


Yes, open source software means that code is available for anyone, and that anyone can use it for any purpose, modify it, study it and/or redistribute it.

Detail definition can be fond here
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php



If so, how come Distros like redhat charge people for downloading the OS, then allow people to muck about with the source and potentially re-release it.
Companies can charge for actual service of redistribution, and can bundle their service subscription with software. That is what Red Hat is doing. The source code is freely available in SRPM format on Red Hat site, and CentOS (http://www.centos.org/) project use it to make free-of-charge distribution. Of course, without ShadowMan logo and Red Hat name, but it is 100% source and binary compatible.

MCVenom
March 28th, 2010, 09:57 PM
Hello
Could someone tell me the meaning of open source, because I am slightly confused

I was aware that it means that the source is open and available to everyone.

However, does it automatically mean that anyone can modify and re-distribute the software?

If so, how come Distros like redhat charge people for downloading the OS, then allow people to muck about with the source and potentially re-release it.
Potentially? Oh I'm afraid it's a bit late for that :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS

That being said, most companies that 'sell' Linux are charging for professional support. I believe that Red Hat makes you buy the support package when you get the OS, but I'm not entirely sure. Ubuntu chooses to provide all of its releases for free, while Canonical provides support and extra services (such as Landscape for servers) for them. This is because of a difference in goals; Red Hat saw most of it's future in enterprise, where professional support would be needed; therefore it had no qualms about bundling support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Ubuntu started out with the goal of expanding the Linux community and becoming a mainstream, easy-to-use desktop operating system; forcing paid support packages on people would hamper that goal greatly, especially when (as we see now in forums like these) "professional" support would be largely unneeded for the average user. Canonical later expanded Ubuntu and started pitching it to enterprise; touting it as a stable Debian-based Linux distribution that could be used for servers and other needs, with Canonical providing professional support for a fee, but a completely *optional* one, unlike Red Hat. That being said, Red Hat has no problem if you clone their OS, as long as you don't use their trademarks. :p