Talk:JFLAP

Free software
I only want to precise that this is definitely not free software. Free software can be commercial, and this is non-commercial software. 

So... a question. Can we say in an encyclopedia that it's at least "open source"? I don't know if this license is approved by the Open Source Initiative... --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Today I've contacted OSI about this question. Waiting for any response. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting:

Hello, I have a OSI compatibility license question. Can we consider a software under this license "open source"? http://www.cs.duke.edu/csed/jflap/jflaptmp/aug28-09/license.html

Re:

The short answer is, no. Any software carrying the JFLAP 7.0 LICENSE should not be labeled "open source software" for a few reasons. First, the JFLAP 7.0 LICENSE is not certified by the OSI as an approved open source license. Only software distributed under an OSI approved license should be labeled, "open source software", A complete list of OSI approved open source licenses can be found here: https://opensource .org/licenses Secondly, the license would most likely not be certified by the OSI because it has a few terms that contradict the Open Source Definition (OSD). For background, the OSD criteria is used by the OSI in the license review process to ensure all submitted licenses ensure software freedom. A license must meet all the criteria of the OSD to be approved. The conflicts with the OSD include: Section I.2: "You cannot charge a fee for any product that includes any part of JFLAP, in source or binary form." Section II.2: "You cannot charge a fee for any product that includes any part of your modified JFLAP, in source or binary form." All Open Source software can be used for commercial purpose; the Open Source Definition guarantees this. You can even sell Open Source software. As the JFLAP 7.0 LICENSE does not allow one to sell the software ("charge a fee"), then it would not qualify as open source software. Hope this helps, Patrick


 * So this is not definitely even "open source" as in by OSI. I think that we can easily avoid the term "open source" e.g. talking about the source available but under some restrictions. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)