View Full Version : Open Source or Free ware

July 29th, 2007, 10:54 AM

Open Source or Free ware

July 29th, 2007, 11:12 AM
I am for Open Source

July 29th, 2007, 11:25 AM
don't confuse ..those term have a lot of difference....freeware always free in price but not in source code...and open source applications mostly are free in price and sources code(NOT ALL)....so understand the the term correctly :)

ok then i vote for open source:)

July 29th, 2007, 11:37 AM
Open source......

July 29th, 2007, 12:22 PM
Although being open source is a pro, if a freeware program works better for me I use the freeware program.

July 29th, 2007, 12:27 PM
Whatever works best

July 29th, 2007, 12:31 PM
Neither one. I'm a fan of software freedom.

But I think people get too picky about terminology...

July 29th, 2007, 03:40 PM
what is best for me

July 29th, 2007, 03:42 PM
I try using open source programs, but have no problem using freeware :)

July 29th, 2007, 03:51 PM
Neither; I only use proprietary software with the official Windows Vista Logo, because Microsoft assure me that using only Microsoft certified software will ensure that I get the best Windows Vista Premium experience and the highest quality software.

July 29th, 2007, 03:59 PM

Open Source or Free ware

"freeware" makes it sound like cheap craplets.

Buffalo Soldier
July 29th, 2007, 04:14 PM

Open Source or Free ware

When you say "Free ware" do you mean "freeware" or "free software". The two sounds alike, but each carries a totally different meaning. Hope this three definitions will clear things up a bit.

Free Software

According to Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html)
We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.

"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.


Freeware is proprietary/closed-source software which is made available for use free of charge, usually for an unlimited time.


According to the definition from Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd):

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

July 29th, 2007, 04:32 PM
I don't see where your going with this.

Freeware is any software(closed or open) that's free of charge
whereas Open Source is just a Philosophy.

July 29th, 2007, 04:45 PM
whichever work better.

July 29th, 2007, 07:38 PM
The term “freeware” has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available). These packages are not free software, so please don't use “freeware” to refer to free software.

The term Freeware refers to gratis proprietary software with closed source.

wikipedia and FSF seem to agree, freeware is gratis (free as in beer) but not libre (free as in speech).

I prefer to use Open Source Software. If I'm not satisfied with the way an Open Source program works, I'm able to contribute my own code. I understand not everyone using Ubuntu has programming experience, but that's cool.

Buffalo Soldier
July 31st, 2007, 10:31 AM


wikipedia and FSF seem to agree, freeware is gratis (free as in beer) but not libre (free as in speech).

I prefer to use Open Source Software. If I'm not satisfied with the way an Open Source program works, I'm able to contribute my own code. I understand not everyone using Ubuntu has programming experience, but that's cool.

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words...

July 31st, 2007, 10:45 AM
Hmm, this is an interesting question. But like az said I'm for software freedom.