[Linuxtrent] Re: Google Chrome
- From: "Giuliano Natali" <diaolin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: linuxtrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 20:36:53 +0200 (CEST)
Con amorevole cura Eugenio ha scritto:
> 2008/9/3 Roberto Resoli <roberto.resoli@xxxxxxxxx>:
> ...........
>> La versione binaria è altra cosa da quella compilabile autonomamente?
>> Allora ha senso dire che Chrome è Open Source?
>
> Che vuol dire?
> Io ti do' un programma open source, mica di to il diritto a modificarlo.
> E' open cioe' aperto, quindi ci puoi guardare dentro.
> Insomma, della serie.... guardare ma non... toccare! :-)
Non è esatto, questo è quello che TU pensi ma non quello che stà nella
definizione di OpenSource.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Introduction
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution
terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.
Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we
eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to
make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be
lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not
distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of
obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost
preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code
must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program.
Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms
such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
Rationale: We require access to un-obfuscated source code because you
can't evolve programs without modifying them. Since our purpose is to make
evolution easy, we require that modification be made easy.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original
software.
Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support
independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid
evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and
redistribute modifications.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the
source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The
license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a
different name or version number from the original software.
Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have
a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using.
Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being
asked to support and protect their reputations.
Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily
available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources
plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but
readily distinguished from the base source.
etc. etc.
Diaolin
--
mi me ?l vardo tuti i dì
con quei sòi vagoni lustri
no desmonta mai negùn
sol fazöi, gent che saluda
par che ?l voltia ?n paradis
Giuliano
--
Per iscriversi (o disiscriversi), basta spedire un messaggio con OGGETTO
"subscribe" (o "unsubscribe") a mailto:linuxtrent-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
