If you think that open source software is shareware, freeware and public domain software synonymous, then you're not the only one who has this view.
When you hear "open source software open source" when the word, do you think it as shareware shareware, freeware freeware synonymous terms or public domain software public domain like? If this is the case, you are not the only people who have this view. Many people inside and outside of the software industry agree that these terms are the same. This article explains the differences between these terms is that open source is a kind of transformational licensing and development model. I share their experience in dealing with more than a few software, it may be the best way to explore the differences.
Shareware and freeware
As early as 1982, when I was writing code in BASIC on the Apple II Plus, I began working as a computer programmer. I think back to the home of a local computer store and find a floppy disk looks expensive equipped with games and utility software in a plastic bag. Remember, this is from the point of view of a middle school student.
However, there are some software can be obtained free of charge or at the lowest price. Based on specific licensing model, which is known as shareware or freeware. In the shareware mode, you can only use the software within a certain period of time, if you find it useful, then ask you to check to the author of the software.
However, some shareware actually encourage you to copy and provide to your friends. This mode is often referred to as freeware. In other words, the difference between shareware and freeware exact definition is very small, making it easy to both simply referred to as "shareware." Although I am not sure, but I do not remember whether I have provided cost-sharing software to use any software author, mainly because I did not have money in the teens, but I definitely prefer to use these software programs, and learned a lot of knowledge about the computer.
Looking back, I now realize that if the software is based on open source software license terms rather than shared between us, then emerging as a programmer, I could grow a lot of things in school, and can achieve more. This is because almost no sharing software source code (i.e., software human readable form). Shareware also includes licensing restrictions, prohibit the recipient tries to reveal its source code. If you can not access the source code, it is difficult to understand the actual work of the software, making it difficult to expand or change its function. This allows the end user completely dependent on the original shareware authors to make any changes or improvements.
Use shareware mode, any developer community is almost impossible to exert influence on the code, and the code further around innovation. Redistribution and commercial uses may be subject to further restrictions. Although sharing software may be free in terms of price (at least initially are free), but it is not free in terms of freedom, and does not allow you to learn and innovation by exploring the inner workings of the code.
This raises a big question: How does it differ from open-source software?
The open source licenses
First, we need to understand the "open source" refers to software licensing model and development model, with both sharing software are quite different. In a non-called "left version of" copyleft open source form under the open source license, to provide users with a crucial liberties, such as no restriction on access to source code; can be sold for any purpose, use or give away the software; you can modify software.
This form of license do not need to pay any royalties or licensing fees. Because the license is highly accommodative, no negotiation can be used, a surprising result of this licensing model is that it has the unique ability to make countless software developers to collaborate together on the new code, useful change and innovation. Although technically, in this mode does not require licensing source code, but almost everyone can use it to view, study, modify and distribute the information to others.
Not "left version of" Another aspect of the open source license that any recipient of such software can add additional license restrictions. This means that the initial licensing of the code in this license form, can not prevent the recipient may not be further licenses to other people based on the more restrictive terms. E.g:
On the assumption that Noah wrote some software, and non "left version" open source license for distribution to the recipient Aviva. Then, Aviva Noah modify and improve the software, she is entitled to use the software non "left version" open source license terms. Then, Aviva may decide to impose further restrictions on the recipients of any limitations in the software may be used, such as where or how to use it (for example, Aviva can add a regulation to limit the software can only be used in the following areas: California, and it does not allow any use in nuclear power plants). Even Aviva access to the source code, you can also choose never to release the modified source code to others.
Unfortunately, there are a myriad of proprietary software companies such use of non- "left version" open source software licenses. In fact, the shareware program can be used not "left version" of open source software by adding a shareware license type restrictions (for example, access to source code or can not exclude commercial use), which will not "left version" open source license code into shareware licensing model.
Fortunately, many non-use "left version" open source software licenses proprietary software companies have seen the benefits of publishing the source code. These organizations are generally provided by the source storage platform GitHub modified software such as a receiver or its broader open source community to remain open persistent mode, a virtuous cycle innovation. This is not entirely for charity (or at least usually not the case): These companies want to encourage community innovation and further improvements, so that they can benefit as well.
At the same time, many proprietary software companies do not choose to do so, which is fully in line with the provisions of non- "left version" open source license terms.
"Left version of" open source software licenses
In 1989, a new being called GNU General Public License (also known as GPL license) open source licenses have been developed, which aims to ensure that the software "born free" (as in free speech), and can remain this freedom, which is not "left version" open source software licenses are sometimes different from what happens. As a unique applicable copyright laws, adhering to these rules (will be re-introduced later), GPL license software to ensure continued freedom. This unique applicable copyright called "left version" copyleft.
Like not "left version of" open source software, "left" license is unrestricted allows the recipient to use the software, check the source code and modify the software, as well as the original or the modified software is further distributed to other recipients. And not "left version" of different open-source licenses, "left version" open source license requires all recipients must also have these same freedoms. Unless we do not follow the rules, otherwise these freedoms must never be recovered.
The "left version of" open source licenses can be enforced, and to encourage people to comply with applicable laws and regulations because of copyright laws. If the recipient "left version" code does not comply with the license terms (for example, using the software to add any additional restrictions or do not provide the source code), then the license will be terminated, and because he no longer enjoys legal permission to use the software, he will become the copyright offenders. Therefore, the "left version" license any software freedom downstream recipients can be protected.
Beyond the Basics: Other software licensing model
I mentioned in front of the public domain software, although it is often confused with open source software, but this model is different. Public domain software refers to the steps have been taken to see to know not correspond with the software copyright exist, the most common situation is that software copyright expired, or of giving up. (In many countries / regions, copyright protection mechanism is not clear, which is why some public domain software may select an open source licensing model as the reason for alternatives.) Using public domain software without license. Although if the source code is available, then many people would think that public domain software is a form of open source software, but do not need a license whether to let public domain software has become "open source software", it is the subject of much debate exists.
Interestingly, there are many open source projects use small module public domain software to perform certain functions. And even claimed that the entire process belongs to the software in the public domain, such as to achieve a SQLite SQL database engine and used in many applications and devices. No license terms of the software is also very common.
Many people mistakenly believe that unlicensed software is open source software, public domain, or unlimited free use. In most countries (including the US), copyright software existed at the time of its creation. This means that no permission in the form of a license can not use it unless it gives up the copyright in some way, and place it in the public domain. There is this general rule are some exceptions, such as the legal aspects of the implied license or fair use. But how they are applied to a specific situation, the situation is very complicated. In compliance with the intent allowed under open source licensing terms, no I do not recommend providing software license terms, as this would lead to confusion and potential abuse.
The benefits of open source software
Like I said before, is a highly efficient open-source software development model, and has a great ability to drive innovation. But what does this mean in the end?
One of the benefits of open source licensing model that greatly reduces friction innovation, especially innovation to other users other than the original author conducted. This friction is limited, because the use of open source software generally does not need to negotiate licensing terms, which greatly simplifies and reduces the cost. In turn, this created an open-source ecosystem, which encourages rapid modifications and combinations of the prior art to form something new. These changes usually give back to the open source ecosystem, so as to construct an innovative recycling.
Driving a lot of things (from your toaster to Mars aircraft) running a myriad of software, it is this combination easily be a direct result of the ability of various programs together - the open source development model so that all the software is to become a reality .
