[maemo-developers] Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?

[From: Aldon Hynes]

Personally, I believe that a proper distinction between free and open source
needs to be made.

Software can be free, but not open source.  (e.g. anyone can download the
software, but they can't download the source)
Software can be Open Source, but not free (This is rare, but can happen.
You have to pay for a license to run the software, but you can view the
source used to create it)
Sofware can be both Open Source and Free (the best of both worlds)
or
Software can be neither free, nor open source, (the worst of both worlds;
proprietary software)

My two cents.

-----Original Message-----
From: maemo-developers-bounces at maemo.org
[mailto:maemo-developers-bounces at maemo.org]On Behalf Of Carsten Munk
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:30 PM
To: maemo-developers at maemo.org
Subject: Re: Is mauku open source, i.e free or is in non-free?


Regarding definitions of free vs non-free in Extras regard:

http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras#About_Extras quote:

Extras is split into two areas:

    * free applications are Open Source have been through the Maemo
Extras vetting process
    * non-free applications are usually closed, binary only and their
quality and security must be taken on trust

This points to open source, not free software, which can mean either:

* Loose definition of open source, which would mean everything with a
open source that autobuilder can build from source code. And non-free
being binary packages it can't/uploader doesn't want to reveal source
code.

or

* The Open Source Definition ,
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php (most likely)

If we base seperation on OSD, then yes, it would go into non-free. If
we base it on the first, then it can stay in free. It does have a
buildable source package, so.

Can someone find further discussion of what how seperation is supposed
to be like?

Maybe a worthwhile discussion for Council to get into as well, this
particular license does say you are not allowed to redistribute the
Mauku source code from maemo.org (or anywhere).

My personal view would be seperating it at OSD definition as history
shows us we might have to watch out for what software we distribute
from maemo.org as it opens the community to C&D's.

Regards,
Carsten Munk/Stskeeps
maemo.org distmaster

2010/1/26 Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah at jeremiahfoster.com>:
>
> Hello,
>
> Bug #7505 asks if mauku is open or closed. According to the bug report, it
looks pretty closed.
>
> https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7505
>
> "I installed mauku from the maemo extras free repository, believing it was
Free
> Software, but trying to figure out which license it is under, I noticed
there
> is no license file at all, and file headers have the following message:
>
> /* Mauku 2.0 (c) Henrik Hedberg <
> hhedberg at innologies.fi
>>
>   You are NOT allowed to modify or redistribute the source code. */
>
> The debian/copyright file also says this:
>
> Mauku 2.0 is NOT open source software. You are NOT allowed to
> modify or redistribute the source code.
>
> I believe it should at least be moved to the non-free section, and stop
> claiming it ships with a free license in its download page."
>
>
> What should we do here? Move this to non-free?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeremiah
> _______________________________________________
> maemo-developers mailing list
> maemo-developers at maemo.org
> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
>
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers at maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers