Wayland 1.2.0 Released, Joined By Weston Compositor

[jayrulez]

The Tizen SDK is not open source. It is not free software and it is not FOSS. It doesn't grant the user the four freedoms, therefore, it's not free and it's not open. The Tizen SDK places restrictions on ways the user is allowed to use the software, and denies the user the right to modify it. All of this goes against the idea of FOSS.

It has open source parts, but the license the SDK is released under is not an open source license.

It's quite interesting though, that the SDK has many GPL parts. The distributors try to get around this by adding in a clause to the SDK license, that basically says "any part of the SDK that is under an open source license, is distributed under that license, which overrules the SDK license" - so you get to abide by GPL on the GPL parts, but when it comes to the SDK as a whole, you should abide by a restrictive, non-open license...? That just seems to me like they've found a loophole in the GPL and are abusing it. Not sure how legal it is, but it's certainly not ethical.

You seem to be confusing the GPL with open source. GPL is a type of open source license but certainly not the only one. Your justification for saying the License is not an open source one is flawed.

It doesn't grant the user the four freedoms, therefore, it's not free and it's not open.

Those are conditions of the GPL and not open source in general.

[dee.]

You seem to be confusing the GPL with open source. GPL is a type of open source license but certainly not the only one. Your justification for saying the License is not an open source one is flawed.

Those are conditions of the GPL and not open source in general.

Nope, but to be considered open source, you need more than just give the user the chance to view the source code. To claim otherwise would be diluting the meaning of "open source".

From wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license

An open source license is a type of license for computer software and other products that allows the source code, blueprint or design to be used, modified and/or shared under defined terms and conditions.[1] This allows end users to review and modify the source code, blueprint or design for their own customization, curiosity or troubleshooting needs. Open-source licensed software is mostly available free of charge, though this does not necessarily have to be the case.

So no, I'm not confused on the meaning of open source. A license that only allows you to view the source code but does not allow you to modify, distribute or run on the hardware of your choice that source code, is not an open source license. Tizen SDK places restrictions on the usage of the Tizen SDK: you are not allowed to modify the SDK, run modified versions of the SDK, you are restricted on what you're allowed to use the SDK for, you're not allowed to redistribute modified or even unmodified versions of the SDK, you're not allowed to run it on a mobile phone. Therefore, it's not open source.

A software can use open source components without being itself open source. Mac OS X uses many, many open source components but do you hear anyone calling it open source? No, you don't.

[jayrulez]

Nope, but to be considered open source, you need more than just give the user the chance to view the source code. To claim otherwise would be diluting the meaning of "open source".

From wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license

So no, I'm not confused on the meaning of open source. A license that only allows you to view the source code but does not allow you to modify, distribute or run on the hardware of your choice that source code, is not an open source license. Tizen SDK places restrictions on the usage of the Tizen SDK: you are not allowed to modify the SDK, run modified versions of the SDK, you are restricted on what you're allowed to use the SDK for, you're not allowed to redistribute modified or even unmodified versions of the SDK, you're not allowed to run it on a mobile phone. Therefore, it's not open source.

A software can use open source components without being itself open source. Mac OS X uses many, many open source components but do you hear anyone calling it open source? No, you don't.

Wikipedia (Your reference) also states:

Flora License (Flora) is a permissive free software licence used by the Linux Foundation in certain platform components of Tizen.

The text of Flora License Version 1.0 is similar to Apache License 2.0. Some of the differences include changed text in the Definitions, Grant of Patent License, and Redistribution sections. Paragraph 4 regarding the redistribution is comparable to standard BSD licenses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_License

A license that only allows you to view the source code but does not allow you to modify, distribute

You should probably read the flora license yourself rather than relying on hear say.

http://floralicense.org/

Section 4:

4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof pursuant to the copyright license above, in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License. You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License and your own copyright statement or terms and conditions do not conflict the conditions stated in this License including section 3.

[dee.]

Cute, but the Tizen SDK is not licensed under the Flora license.

[Awesomeness]

Cute, but the Tizen SDK is not licensed under the Flora license.

The SDK is not the topic at hand. http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...471#post342471

[dee.]

The SDK is not the topic at hand. http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...471#post342471

The SDK is the topic at hand. It is what I have been talking about with Jayrulez as you can clearly see if you follow the conversation backwards. Every post I have made in this thread have been about the SDK, I originally started responding to Jayrulez's post claiming "the SDK is open source" which I disputed.

Surely you can see that this is very clearly about the SDK.

Now, oddly, the Tizen official site seems to have taken the license text of the SDK down... it can no longer be found anywhere on the official site. I have however read the license while it was still up (well, scanned through at any rate) and it was not the Flora license or any other open source license. It was purely a proprietary license, restricting the user's rights.

Now, it might be that they got scared with possible trouble regarding GPL violations, since many parts of the Tizen SDK are indeed under GPL, and adding in a clause to the SDK that "oh, any part that is under GPL, is not covered by this license", but to me that seems kinda a shoddy excuse, and the GPL specifically requires any derivative work to also be licensed under GPL, not any restrictive proprietary license. I guess it could be debatable whether the SDK would be considered a derivative work of the software that is used in it, but I think a case could be made that the Tizen SDK was/is violating the GPL (IANAL though).

[intellivision]

The SDK is not the topic at hand. http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...471#post342471

You may not think it's off topic, but it's relevant as it restricts user freedoms as well.

[Awesomeness]

You may not think it's off topic, but it's relevant as it restricts user freedoms as well.

SDKs are not for users and developers have all required bits under FOSS licenses available in Tizen?s repo.
I don?t know if you omitted my earlier comment on purpose or if you just overlooked it but the thing that?s actually required to build Tizen apps is GCC and GCC is bundled: https://review.tizen.org/git/

[intellivision]

SDKs are not for users and developers have all required bits under FOSS licenses available in Tizen?s repo.
I don?t know if you omitted my earlier comment on purpose or if you just overlooked it but the thing that?s actually required to build Tizen apps is GCC and GCC is bundled: https://review.tizen.org/git/

So they market their platform as FOSS, then they recommend development in an SDK that isn't, ship the OS with components that don't fall under the FOSS definition and give themselves the right to refuse applications entry into their software repository if not developed with the official SDK.

Sounds like a pretty fun, open platform.

I also recommend that you reply to dee's post, unless of course you find no faults and you're happy with the analysis of Tizen's lack of openness.

[Awesomeness]

ship the OS with components that don't fall under the FOSS definition

Aren't you embarrassed by your lies?

Quote from a reference in the Wikipedia article you linked regarding Tizen:
?there are no formal limitations with regard to obtaining the source code and creating derivatives thereof?
(Open Governance white paper. Webinos. pp. 23?24. http://www.webinos.org/content/webin...Governance.pdf )