|
These are two names that are often used synonymously but are far from being so. On the contrary, there are profound differences between them. |
Free software (in English free software, although in reality this name can also mean free, and not necessarily free, which is why free Hispanism is also used in English) is the name of software that respects the freedom of users over their Product purchased and, therefore, once obtained, can be freely used, copied, studied, changed and redistributed.
According to Free Software Foundation, free software refers to the freedom of users to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software; more precisely, it refers to four freedoms of software users:
- the freedom of use the program, for any purpose;
- the freedom of study how the program works and modify it, adapting it to your needs;
- the freedom of to distribute copies of the program, with which you can help to your neighbor;
- the freedom of to improve the program and make public those improvements to others, so that the whole community benefits.
One of the reasons for the confusion that many people confuse free software and free software comes, as we saw, from the ambiguity of the word "free" in English.. It is for this reason that Free Open Source Software (FOSS) is also known as Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS). So, you know, the next time you go to a website in English and say that a program is "free", you are going to have to ask yourself: what does it mean? Is it "free" or "free"? To solve the riddle, you will only be able to find out whether or not you comply with the 4 freedoms listed above.
It is also easy to confuse "freeware" and "free software" because free software is often freely available, or at the cost of distribution through other means; however, this is not required. Therefore, it is not correct to associate free software with "free software" (usually called "freeware"), since software, while retaining its free character, can be commercially distributed ("commercial software"). Similarly, "free software" or "free" sometimes includes source code; however, this type of software is not free in the same sense as free software, unless the rights to modify and redistribute such modified versions of the program are guaranteed.
Free software development is not a "hippie" creation. Although a considerable part of the contributions to the development of free software is made by people who do it for pleasure and personal vocation, many of them receive financial compensation for their work. On the other hand, there are numerous companies that have been able to "make free software a big business", such as Google, Canonical, Red Hat, IBM and many others. Finally, we must not forget that many times the business behind free software is linked to the offer of additional services to the software, such as: its customization and / or installation, technical support, donations, sponsorships; as opposed to the predominant license-based business model in closed source software.
Why use licenses?
If the idea is that anybody can run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software, then why is the use of licenses necessary? Isn't "proprietary software" characterized precisely by the use of licenses? Ehh… no!
First, the need to "protect" free software through the use of licenses arises from the following hypothesis: What if a company takes a "free software" project and covers it under a "restrictive" or "proprietary" license? To prevent this from happening, it is necessary to use "free" licenses to protect these projects. Second, this shows that the difference between free software and proprietary software does not lie in the use or not of licenses but in the type of licenses used.
Nor should free software be confused with "public domain software". The latter is software that does not require a license, since its "exploitation" rights are for all humanity, and it belongs to everyone equally. Anyone can make use of it, always for legal purposes and stating its original authorship. This software would be the one whose author donates it to humanity or whose copyright has expired, after a period from the death of this, usually 70 years. If an author conditions its use under a license, however weak it may be, it is no longer in the public domain.
"Free" licenses
To see a complete comparative list of all the free software licenses known so far, I suggest you see this Wikipedia page.
Exactly ... they use the word in Spanish to avoid confusion. How nice that sounds, right? Especially when our language is so bastardized by some… 🙂
Exactly ... they use the word in Spanish to avoid confusion. How nice that sounds, right? Especially when our language is so bastardized by some… 🙂
SIIII, as is, re-cute it sounds, especially after using everyday words like 'scan', 'reporter' (WTF !! journalist, la puta madre, perio-dis-ta) and so many other Anglicanisms = D
Excellent article.
Exact!
bastardized ?? well you cursile it, with re-cute
To avoid confusion, if I'm not mistaken, they also use the distinction of using the word "free" in Spanish, indicating that free software is free but not necessarily free, licenses give you the power to charge for distributing your work if you wish. As long as you respect the license terms, such as distributing the source code, it is worth taking a look at the GPL and LGPL to learn a little more about free software.
There is actually a trend in people blogging in English where Free Software is referred to as "Free Software" or "Free Software". I think that is how the matter is differentiated a bit with the word "Free." And even if people do not understand the Spanish language, they automatically know that they refer to Free de Libertad, not price.
I think those CDs from Canonical do the same.
Luckily there are several licenses for each type of user. Congratulations on the post.
this is a shame
I shit on god