Re: Article for comment

Thanks for the comments, Eman.  The reason why I wrote the opening statement
that way was because I was writing for a general audience for whom the
philosophical differences between Free Software (as opposed to free
software) and Open Source Software might be more confusing.  So I do mean it
in the general term understood by the population at large, as in freeware.

Also, I do say in the second statement that equivalence is troublesome.

Feel free to use the analogy.  I didn't give proper credit, but I heard this
from JJ Disini at LinuxWorld.  But please don't post on the web at large.
This is for ComputerWorld on Campus.

Thanks again.

On 11/28/05, Eman Gardaya Calso <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Shouldn't this be better on plug-misc?
>
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 21:10 +0800, Dominique Cimafranca wrote:
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > Wrote this up for a publication.  Thought it might be useful to some
> > folks, so I'm posting it here.  Please do send in your comments.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --Dom
> >
> >
> >
> > Why You Should Care About Open Source
> >
> > To many people, open source is synonymous with free software.  Therein
> > lies the trouble.  While the two sometimes coincide, it is not always
> > the case.  Sometimes, you have free software that is not open source;
> > and sometimes, you have open source software that is not free.
> >
> > Confused?  Let's try to clear things up, starting with the word
> > "free."  There are two meanings to "free" when referring to software.
> > The first, and probably the more common, refers to zero-cost.
> > Appropriately, this is the term that applies to freeware, whatever
> > platform they may run on.  The second meaning is less common and
> > relates to freedom.
> >
> > Ah, but freedom to do what? And why do we need this in the first
> > place?
> >
> > Most software today is governed by licenses that permit the user to do
> > certain things while restricting others.  So, for example, a Microsoft
> > Windows license will legally let you run the operating system on only
> > one computer, and not on another.  It does not allow you to give it
> > away to another person nor to take it apart and study what makes it
> > work from the inside.
> >
> > In contrast, an open source license, as defined by the Open Source
> > Consortium, will allow you four fundamental freedoms: (1) the freedom
> > to run the program for any purpose; (2) the freedom to study the
> > program; (3) the freedom to improve the program; and (4) the freedom
> > to distribute the program. The human-readable source code is
> > fundamental to the last three freedoms, and therefore, access to it is
> > a precondition for open source software.  Hence, the term "open
> > source."
> >
> > Now, some of you might exclaim: "What does that have to do with me?
> > I'm not a programmer.  I just want to use nice software that's free or
> > available at a reasonable price."
> >
> > It might help if we take a step back and tackle it by way of a
> > commonplace analogy: cookies.  Not the kind that goes into your web
> > browser, but the kind that's yummy and gets all crumbly when you eat
> > it.
> >
> > Let's say that in the course of your gastronomical experiments, you've
> > hit upon a wonderful new recipe for a cookie.  It's so good that
> > everyone who's tasted it wants more.  So what do you do?  You have two
> > options before you.
> >
> > One: you could keep the cookie recipe a secret, bake the cookies
> > yourself, sell your product, and make a nice profit out of your
> > labors.  You can price the cookies as high as you want because no one
> > else is able to make them quite like you do.
> >
> > Or two: you could give out the cookie recipe so that other people can
> > bake their own cookies.  You can still sell your cookies, but now
> > other people can even sell them in competition to you.  They are free
> > to make improvements on your recipe with the precondition that they
> > also give away those improved recipes.  In turn, you can also make and
> > sell cookies based on these recipe variations.
> >
> > Which option is right and which option is wrong?  Well, neither,
> > really.  You're free to do as you choose, depending on the
> > circumstances.
> >
> > If you take the first path, you will be able to sell more cookies, and
> > that's a good thing.  On the downside, there isn't going to be as much
> > variety on the market and after a while your recipe could get, well,
> > stale.  And who's to say that somewhere down the line there won't be
> > someone else who can match your cookie recipe?
> >
> > If you take the second path, you won't get to sell as much as when you
> > had a monopoly, and that might not be so good for you financially.
> > But there'll be more cookie recipes out in the market, some of which
> > may be even better than your original and which you can bake for
> > yourself.  And overall, the prices of cookies will be lower because
> > many more people can make them (and you might even choose to buy from
> > someone else who can bake them better).
> >
> > The analogies should be obvious enough: cookies stand for software,
> > and the cookie recipe is the source code.  While it's alright to keep
> > the source code for yourself -- and there may be good reason for doing
> > so --  it opens up a whole avenue of wonderful possibilities if you
> > open it up.
> >
> > Now, put yourself in another role.  Say that you don't bake cookies
> > yourself, but you do like to eat them.  As a dedicated cookie
> > connoisseur, Which of the two situations above do you think would be
> > better for you?  Again, it's alright to buy from someone with a secret
> > recipe, wouldn't it be better to create an environment where you get
> > more variety and at lower prices?
> >
> > The same analogy can hold for software as well.  This is the promise
> > that open source presents: more variety, and at more affordable
> > prices.
> >
> > So you see, that's why, even if you're not a developer, open source
> > ought to mean something to you.  And even if you are just a user, try
> > to find some means of contributing to open source: using the software,
> > reporting bugs, and getting other people to use it.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Newbie Mailing List
> > [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
> > Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
> > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
> --
> eman
> http://www.bloodpet.tk/ || http://www.bloodpet.dsl.ph/
> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 4C683E4C
> Registered Linux User #287022
> +63(2)455-3222
> Books just wanna be FREE!
> See what I mean at:
> http://bookcrossing.com/friend/bloodpet
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBDixd0LVRiw0xoPkwRAhALAJ4nX5PGZyZpV8OXDiNYXbU14kXSywCfVwhY
> ol1ZENW+u+8+QL9Y1u0FGPE=
> =vfzd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Newbie Mailing List
> [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
> Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Newbie Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph