the standard patent glazing co

the standard patent glazing co
The Wikipedia Encyclopedia describes open source as a" procedure in the production and development, the promotion of access to the end product of the sources. "Before the open source label was coined, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept. In fact, previous researchers used a procedure that is similar to open standards to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary Open-source work, this collaboration led to the birth of the Internet in 1969. The application of the software gained popularity with the advent of the Internet. It is said that the open source label was created by a strategy session in Palo Alto, California, in reaction to the announcement made by Netscape, it is planned that the source code for its Navigator browser.

The politically correct version is to clarify that a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word "free", so that the perception of free software is not anti-commercial and open-source label (contributed by Chris Peterson) stuck. The official version is that it is to shed the confrontational attitude that has been associated with free software in the past and the idea with pragmatic, economic reasons, the commercial world. Whatever it may be, Netscape, and their code as open source under the name Mozilla. That was the beginning of modern open-source movement, whose main champion is now allegedly the Open Source Initiative (OSI), which deals with the production and continues to be a case for the open-source software for the commercial world. Therefore, we have seen the application of the open source philosophy in other areas, including biotechnology. Linus Torvalds, a Finnish software engineer who led the development of the Linux kernel went so far that "The future is open source everything".

According to the OSI, the Open Source software is simple - free access to read, redistribute and modify the source code of software leads to a rapid evolutionary process that is a better software. Proponents argue that open-source programmers, if read, share and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software developed. People to improve, people adapt, people fix bugs. And that can happen at a speed that, if it is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing.

However evangelist 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 practical and ethical considerations, while not free software is based on freedom, not price. In line with 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 the values. While the two are not synonymous, both have a common enemy - the proprietary software.

Critics say that open-source open-source promotes a different kind of ambiguity, because it confuses the mere availability of source code with the freedom to use, modify and redistribute it. But open source does not just mean access to the source code, the use of open source software has a number of criteria, such as a new distribution, depending on the license under which it is distributed. Various licenses require different criteria. For example, under the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the licensing of free software, which work based on the Program or any other processing must be licensed as a whole, without at all for all third parties under the terms of the GNU GPL, whereas an Apache license does not require derivative works to open source. You can create your own copyright statement to changes in the source code under Apache License and additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction or distribution of your modifications, or for any derivative works as a whole, provided that the use, reproduction and distribution of work otherwise in accordance with the terms of the Apache License. There is also no requirement that any derivative work under an Academic Free License (AFL) or a Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license, should be applicable to all, or for free when distributed. Further, any derivative work must not be free, and you can for them, as you would for proprietary software.

The subtle admission criteria between open source and free software in general is highlighted when you consider that some licenses are not compatible. For example, programs / source code under the PHP license is not compatible with the GNU GPL, since GPL is a copyleft license. This raises a few questions of the Licensing:

(1) Why are there different criteria under different licenses for open source software? Currently there are approximately 54 licenses certified by OSI as open source - a tribute to the OSI philosophy - that many today as an unnecessary proliferation of licenses, an issue that OSI forced to admit that --

"OSI approach to the development and distribution problems building as many bridges as possible between the developers and businesses. In this way, we have a large number of new licenses. This is a problem that, although in the physical connections between communities are not interfere with each other, licenses do. interference between different open source licenses is now displayed as a serious problem that sufficient OSI has established itself as a victim of its own previous success. "

To address the problem of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, OSI plans to all existing licenses and OSI-approved group in three stages: (i) preference, (ii) recommended, but not preferred, and (iii) is not recommended. This is likely to more confusion. One would then ask why OSI OSI certified license would "not recommended" license. Would a "not recommended" tag is not a de-authorization (if OSI says its not). It would be "better" are not certified as such license OSI approved in the first place.

(2) Why are some licenses are not compatible with others? We can also appreciate that the compatibility goes beyond the issue of license proliferation. For example, the FSF all versions of the Apache License, Version 2 with the GNU GPL. About the version 2.0 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 some patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We do not believe that the patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but they are not compatible with the GNU GPL.) "

Apache Software Foundation (ASF), the Apache license, has sufficiently answered FSF statement that ASF is not the same objectives as the FSF. For the period, the controversy rages on. Compatibility is really a relationship issue; Free Software Movement and the Open Source movement with two political camps within the free software community. Although it can be argued that the GNU GPL is not compatible with a number of licenses, because the philosophy behind the GNU GPL is the freedom - the proponents of free software have cried hoarse from the rooftops for decades - even the GNU GPL a list of free / open source software licenses, the GPL does not, the distinction between non-copyleft and "not strong copyleft". Even copyleft licenses such as xinetd also not spared and was not because there are additional restrictions on the redistribution of modified versions that contradict the redistribution requirements of the GPL. You do not have the same goals? But the free software movement has for a pot together with open source software is restrictive of free software as open source software allegedly has a much weaker criterion than free software. Then you can ask what the criteria for determining the compatibility with the GNU GPL for free software, copyleft licenses? At least FSF is not the intention to classify licenses in the same manner as OSI - for today.

(3) not some of these licenses for a "simple" street attitude described by John Udell in citizenship is, in open-source developers are encouraged to take and not back into the community. Or it could be similar to the situation by Stallman, where the commercial developers invited to the "Open Source Developers Day" meeting in August 1998 that they intend to only a portion of their work free software (or Open Source ), since the focus of their company is specialized in the development of own add-ons (software or manuals) to sell to the users of free software. According to Stallman, the developer requested that this be viewed as legitimate, as part of the community because some of the money will be donated to the development of free software. Which way you look at it, it is a dangerous development for the future of open source software.

The ideals and philosophy of open source is threatened by the "marriage of convenience" of open source with the commercial world, a strong argument for the traditional free-software movement. It is, perhaps, with the motto "a case for the commercial world" too far. Finally, it seems like a mixture of the two open-source movement and the commercial world that we are unable to distinguish between the two. The enemy had sneaked in unexpected and sports all ideals and philosophy of the Open Source movement.

These are all valid concerns that the open source community into consideration. Finally, I have a word of advice for the Open Source movement by my grandmother that I appropriate - If you do not know where you go, remember, if you.

Sources

1. Wikipedia encyclopedia

2. Open Source Initiative

3. The Free Software Foundation

4. The Apache Software Foundation

5. Richard M. Stallman in "Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution

6. John Udell "open-source commitment."