Re: Building Octave without xcode

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

2010/12/25 Ben Abbott <address@hidden>:
> On Dec 25, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>
>> 2010/12/25 Ben Abbott <address@hidden>:
>>> On Dec 25, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>>
>>>> Ben... calling gcc "open source"? :-(
>>>
>>> Does gcc not fit the definition of open source?
>>>
>>>        
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open_Source_Definition
>>
>> Yes, it does, but "open source" is Apple's preferred terminology. Note
>> how they never say "free software". Why? Because people could be
>> confused that you could get gcc or gdb without paying for it?
>
> My understanding is that "free software" is a subset of "open
> source". Correct?

No. "Open source" was supposed to be the profit-friendly synonym for
"free software" because people kept associating "free" with "gratis".
By and large, open source and free software are synonyms. The Open
Source Definition, when people actually bother to read it instead of
trying to guess the meaning, says pretty much the same thing as the
Free Software Definition. The Open Source Initiative and the Free
Software Foundation almost never disagree on what licenses are open
source/free software.

> Xcode includes "open source" software with licenses that do not meet
> the requirements of "free software".

No, I don't think they do. All of the open source tools in Xcode
except perhaps Sente, which I've never heard of before, are also free
software.

> Even though Apple's Xcode is available free of payment, isn't "open
> source" the proper description?

It's... a matter of emphasis:

     http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

- Jordi G. H.