I recently made a post on forum about this image that I show you
With regard to free software and proprietary software, he is not without reason. But his vision of open source seems to me (in my opinion) exaggerated. First I am going to list the criteria that a license must have to be considered open source:
1) It should not restrict that anyone can sell or give away the software, nor require the collection of royalties in case of selling it.
2) The program must include the source code and allow its distribution in both source and compiled code (in the latter case, there must be a means to access the code and no more than a reasonable cost of reproduction).
3) You must allow modifications and derivative works and also allow these to be distributed under the same terms of the original license.
4) Must allow EXPLICITLY the distribution of software made with modified code. You can restrict such distribution SINGLE if the license allows the distribution of patches with the code for the purpose of modifying the program at compile time. It may require that the derived software have a different name or version than the original.
5) You must not discriminate against any person or group of people.
6) You must not restrict anyone from using the software in a certain work area.
7) The rights in licensed software should apply to anyone who distributes it to you without the need for extra licenses.
8) The license must not be specific to a product.
9) The license should not restrict any other software that is distributed together with the licensed software.
10) The license must be technologically neutral.
1) The prohibition of making commercial use of open source is a absolute ball, due to criterion 1.
2) Idem for the lack of guarantee of the modification of the code, due to criterion 3
3) Ditto for the "only sometimes" on sharing the original software, due to criteria 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7
4) About the lack of guarantee to share the modifications, that's when the license it is not copyleft, not because it's open source.
5) More than a comparison between free and open source software, it is a comparison between the GPL and any other non-copyleft license.
Remember readers well: The difference between free software and open source is the point of view. The first approaches everything from the point of view of freedom, the other faces it from the point of view technical-methodological.
And since we are, I'm going to put another article here but about licenses. We have already seen the requirements that an open source license must have. It goes without saying that a free software license requires that comply with the 4 freedoms. Usually a free software license is also open source and vice versa. And the same in reverse, if it is not free, it is not open source and vice versa. There is exceptions to the rule and are as follows:
1) The 4-clause BSD (also known as the original BSD). It is not open source since one of its clauses set advertising for the organization that wrote the code (violating criterion 8, in addition to GPL compatibility). The BSDs with 2 and 3 clauses are free and open source, in addition to both being compatible with the GPL.
2) La CECILL (CEA CNRS INRIA Free Logiciel) It is free and intended to be GPLv2 compatible but based on french law.
3) The license of cryptix (used in the cryptix project, known for its Java cryptography extension). It's the 2-clause BSD, but specific to the product.
4) Do what the fuck you want to Public License (The license of the do what you want with my code. It does not need more explanations) The reason why they did not put that it is open, is because according to Martin Michlmayr (who reviewed the only paragraph of the license) in Europe there is no Public Domain. By the way, the one who created it was Sam Hocevar, leader of the Debian project between 2007-08.
5) The license Netscape. An ironically free license that the FSF urges you not to use NEVER, For the DISCRIMINATION that radiates towards users. That is the main difference between that license and the Mozilla license (which is open source and free).
6) The license OpenSSL. This includes a advertising clause, mainly because it is based on the Apache license version 1.0 (not open) and not 2.0 (open).
7) The license XFree86. Same as 4 clause BSD.
8) to Reciprocal Public License. Unlike those already listed, it is an open source license but not free. It's like a GPL that obliges to publish any modification made by a company, although this one does it privately.
Now, there are also other questions about free and open source licenses, such as its compatibility with the GPL, if it is copyleft or not, or if it is approved by the general guidelines of Debian. Free and open source licenses that are not compatible with the GPL are Eclipse, Mozilla (versions prior to 2.0), Apache (same as Mozilla), IBM, LaTeX, PHP and Sun among others. Free and open source licenses that are not copyleft are BSD, MIT, Python, PHP and Apache and Artistic among others. And on the general lines of Debian, they reject the GNU Free Documentation License if the document includes invariant sections.
We can also talk about other restrictions allowed within free software, such as how strong copyleft has to be. The LGPL (weak copyleft) was intended so that modules that are part of a GPL (strong copyleft) program, would also be used in non-GPL programs (LibreOffice is licensed under the LGPL).
Another restriction is that of the patent retaliation, that is, your rights as a user of a certain program end when you go to court against the company that created the software for a patent issue. Guess which Free and Open Source license this measure includes, in addition to the Mozilla and Apache licenses.
There is also the case of licenses that consider hardware restrictions (such as the tivoisation). Version 3.0 of the GPL was created precisely to combat tivoisation, because TiVo uses free software for its machines, shares the code under the GPLv2, but does not allow the modified code to be executed, without authorization by means of the company's digital signature (something similar happens with Secure Boot). Linus is disagree with version 3, firstly because he considers that a software license should not be extended to hardware and secondly because he personally considers digital signatures as a beneficial security tool.
And I'm tired of writing. I hope this article is useful to nano for your Linux For Dummies presentation. For the next one I do one on how to commercialize free software.
Definition of Open Source: http://opensource.org/osd
RMS take on the Netscape license: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.es.html