[mythtvnz] freeware vs open source (was USB remote receiver)

[Nick Rout]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Hadley Rich<hads at nice.net.nz> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 13:10 +1200, Alan Walls wrote:
>> I agree freeware and GPL are different but only to developers (and
>> lawyers) (Aren't you both :-) ).  For people who don't want anything
>> to do with compilers they are both the same thing.  Saying "GPL" would
>> confuse rather than help these people.  The people who need to know
>> the difference will do the research to find which is which.
>
> Woh there. freeware and the GPL are very different for everyone whether
> they be a developer or not. Sure the end user just gets to "get stuff
> without paying for it" in both cases but that's not the point.
>
> Just because the end user doesn't care about compiling it or looking at
> the source doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit them that it's available
> with open source programs. Someone else out there has more than likely
> gone through the source and found any malware parts, things that phone
> home etc. The same can't be said for "freeware".

What he said, plus GPL'd code can be fixed long after the author has
lost interest or gone to jail for murder.

I'd be happy if the web page said "open source" instead of "freeware".
That would be clear enough. The term "open source" is reasonably well
recognised now.

Additional point - before I sent my message I checked the lirc license
(in case I made a dick of myself by getting it wrong). It equally
annoys me to have to download the source code to check the license (I
am not on a linux machine to check an installed version).

According to google the word "license" appears only once on the
lirc.org site (and not in relation to lirc itself), the term "GPL"
appears only once (and in relation to xine not lirc) and for good
measure the word "licence" does not appear at all.

Really how hard would it be to have an "about" page or a "license" page?