You can read the open source definition here. As you can see, there is nothing keeping them from charging money for it, they just have to provide sources to customers, and customers have to be allowed to redistribute modified versions.
（不幸的是，任何人都无法阻止这种混乱。在 OSI 之前很长一段时间就存在“开源”软件，这通常意味着您可以获得源代码的软件。编辑：历史用法是可疑的，但是“开放” Source”的描述性太强，无法注册商标。您可以轻松地为一个虚构的单词（“Pentium”）或在其他上下文中使用的单词（“Vista”）注册商标，但为描述性术语（“Open”）注册商标确实很困难来源”）。如果没有商标保护或同等保护，就没有合法的方法可以阻止任何人为该短语提供自己的含义。）
即使他们是这样，他们仍然可以收费。如果您查看 OSI 的开源许可证规则，您会发现所有操作系统许可证都必须允许该软件的商业用途，包括以卖方能得到的任何价格出售该软件。同样，自由软件（由 FSF 定义）不一定是免费的，但确实为您提供了一定的代码自由。
The Open Source Initiative and Open Source movement have definitions of Open Source that are almost completely equivalent to the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software. However, "Open Source" is not a trademark or anything like that, and people are legally free to use the phrase as they like. Since the site refers to a 30-day free trial, I'd imagine that they aren't using "Open Source" in the same sense.
(Unfortunately, there's nothing anybody can do to stop the confusion. There was "open source" software for a long time before the OSI, which typically meant software you could get the source for. EDIT: The historical usage is dubious, but "Open Source" is simply too descriptive to be trademarked. You can trademark a made-up word ("Pentium") easily, or a word used in another context ("Vista"), but it's real difficult to trademark a descriptive term ("Open Source"). Without trademark protection or the equivalent, there's no legal way to stop anybody from supplying their own meaning for the phrase.)
Even if they were, they could still charge. If you look at the OSI's rules for Open Source licenses, you'll see that all OS licenses must permit commercial use of the software, including selling it for whatever the seller can get for it. Similarly, Free Software (as defined by the FSF) is not necessarily free of charge, but does give you certain freedoms with the code.
There another sense of "open source" that they might be using. In journalism there is an idea of open sources, i.e. sources that are not private to the writer. Maybe they mean something more like this, but it's probably just a marketing ploy.
Open source as the phrase indicates only means that the source code is open and free so that you can modify it as you please. The actual product can still cost you.
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."
You can get the source and you can do what you like with it. That does not mean the author (or anyone else for that matter) cannot charge for distribution and support of products created using that source. Someone offers a service for a fee, and you are free to take it or leave it depending on the value you might place on such service, the alternative is that you support yourself, and often that's fine, but sometimes the cost-benefit weighs in at value-added services.
They could mean that some of the core business logic is open source, but some of their uses could be closed source. Or you might be able to download the source and build it.
Look at RedHat Linux. Its open source (in fact there is a o.s. spinoff) but you only get RedHat support if you pay, and people pay A LOT.
If you have a copy of the software and someone claims that you can't use it (or continue to use it) without paying them, then they are claiming that that software is not open source. If they have a legal right to force you to stop using it, then the software is not open source. Open source gives you a lot of protections: not only to keep using the software, but to inspect the source, to modify it, and redistribute both the original and your modifications.
But there are various things people do that cost money: they will charge you to give you a copy of the software in the first place (this will only work if there aren't very many customers; if they try to prohibit the customers from sharing what they've paid for, then the software stops being open source and in some cases is a GPL violation, and if there are a lot of customers who have the legal right to put the software up on a web site somewhere, sooner or later one will), or they will charge you for proprietary add-ons, or they will sell you services related to the software.
I always think that Open Source see itself as a pragmatic & an effective business model to do software for free At the other side, Free Softwares are more 'bout "philosophical" and moral issue (aka Intellectual propriety, etc)
Open Source does not imply $0 cost. $0 Cost does not imply Open Source.
Open Source means that as you get the software, you're entitled to see the source, and do stuff to it (within certain constraints specified by the licenses)
发布评论
评论（10）
您可以在此处阅读开源定义。正如您所看到的，没有什么可以阻止他们为此收费，他们只需向客户提供源代码，并且必须允许客户重新分发修改后的版本。
You can read the open source definition here. As you can see, there is nothing keeping them from charging money for it, they just have to provide sources to customers, and customers have to be allowed to redistribute modified versions.
开源倡议和开源运动对开源的定义几乎完全等同于自由软件基金会对自由软件的定义。然而，“开源”不是商标或类似的东西，人们在法律上可以随意使用这个短语。由于该网站提到 30 天免费试用，我想他们不会以同样的方式使用“开源”。
（不幸的是，任何人都无法阻止这种混乱。在 OSI 之前很长一段时间就存在“开源”软件，这通常意味着您可以获得源代码的软件。编辑：历史用法是可疑的，但是“开放” Source”的描述性太强，无法注册商标。您可以轻松地为一个虚构的单词（“Pentium”）或在其他上下文中使用的单词（“Vista”）注册商标，但为描述性术语（“Open”）注册商标确实很困难来源”）。如果没有商标保护或同等保护，就没有合法的方法可以阻止任何人为该短语提供自己的含义。）
即使他们是这样，他们仍然可以收费。如果您查看 OSI 的开源许可证规则，您会发现所有操作系统许可证都必须允许该软件的商业用途，包括以卖方能得到的任何价格出售该软件。同样，自由软件（由 FSF 定义）不一定是免费的，但确实为您提供了一定的代码自由。
The Open Source Initiative and Open Source movement have definitions of Open Source that are almost completely equivalent to the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software. However, "Open Source" is not a trademark or anything like that, and people are legally free to use the phrase as they like. Since the site refers to a 30-day free trial, I'd imagine that they aren't using "Open Source" in the same sense.
(Unfortunately, there's nothing anybody can do to stop the confusion. There was "open source" software for a long time before the OSI, which typically meant software you could get the source for. EDIT: The historical usage is dubious, but "Open Source" is simply too descriptive to be trademarked. You can trademark a made-up word ("Pentium") easily, or a word used in another context ("Vista"), but it's real difficult to trademark a descriptive term ("Open Source"). Without trademark protection or the equivalent, there's no legal way to stop anybody from supplying their own meaning for the phrase.)
Even if they were, they could still charge. If you look at the OSI's rules for Open Source licenses, you'll see that all OS licenses must permit commercial use of the software, including selling it for whatever the seller can get for it. Similarly, Free Software (as defined by the FSF) is not necessarily free of charge, but does give you certain freedoms with the code.
他们可能正在使用另一种意义上的“开源”。在新闻业中有一个开放源的概念，即非作者私有的源。也许他们的意思更像是这样，但这可能只是一种营销策略。
There another sense of "open source" that they might be using. In journalism there is an idea of open sources, i.e. sources that are not private to the writer. Maybe they mean something more like this, but it's probably just a marketing ploy.
“开源”一词仅表示源代码是开放且免费的，以便您可以根据需要进行修改。实际产品仍然可能会让您付出代价。
它不是免费软件，它是开源的。 :)
Open source as the phrase indicates only means that the source code is open and free so that you can modify it as you please. The actual product can still cost you.
It's not freeware, it's open source. :)
来自 FSF 对“自由软件”的定义：
您可以获得源代码，并且可以用它做您喜欢的事情。这并不意味着作者（或任何其他人）不能对使用该来源创建的产品的分发和支持收取费用。有人提供收费服务，你可以自由地接受或放弃它，具体取决于你对此类服务的重视程度，另一种选择是你养活自己，通常这很好，但有时成本效益会产生影响在增值服务方面。
From the FSF definition of "Free Software":
You can get the source and you can do what you like with it. That does not mean the author (or anyone else for that matter) cannot charge for distribution and support of products created using that source. Someone offers a service for a fee, and you are free to take it or leave it depending on the value you might place on such service, the alternative is that you support yourself, and often that's fine, but sometimes the cost-benefit weighs in at value-added services.
它们可能意味着某些核心业务逻辑是开源的，但它们的某些用途可能是闭源的。或者您可以下载源代码并构建它。
看看红帽Linux。它是开源的（事实上有一个操作系统衍生产品），但只有付费才能获得 RedHat 支持，而且人们付出了很多。
They could mean that some of the core business logic is open source, but some of their uses could be closed source. Or you might be able to download the source and build it.
Look at RedHat Linux. Its open source (in fact there is a o.s. spinoff) but you only get RedHat support if you pay, and people pay A LOT.
如果您有该软件的副本，并且有人声称您不付费就无法使用它（或继续使用它），那么他们就声称该软件不是开源的。如果他们有合法权利强迫您停止使用它，那么该软件就不是开源的。开源为您提供了很多保护：不仅可以继续使用该软件，还可以检查源代码、修改它以及重新分发原始版本和您的修改版本。
但是人们做的很多事情都是要花钱的：他们首先会向您收取软件副本的费用（这只有在客户不是很多的情况下才有效；如果他们试图禁止客户共享如果他们已经支付了费用，那么该软件就不再是开源的，并且在某些情况下违反了 GPL，并且如果有很多客户迟早拥有合法权利将该软件发布到某个网站上一个会），或者他们会向您收取专有附加组件的费用，或者他们会向您出售与该软件相关的服务。
If you have a copy of the software and someone claims that you can't use it (or continue to use it) without paying them, then they are claiming that that software is not open source. If they have a legal right to force you to stop using it, then the software is not open source. Open source gives you a lot of protections: not only to keep using the software, but to inspect the source, to modify it, and redistribute both the original and your modifications.
But there are various things people do that cost money: they will charge you to give you a copy of the software in the first place (this will only work if there aren't very many customers; if they try to prohibit the customers from sharing what they've paid for, then the software stops being open source and in some cases is a GPL violation, and if there are a lot of customers who have the legal right to put the software up on a web site somewhere, sooner or later one will), or they will charge you for proprietary add-ons, or they will sell you services related to the software.
“可以开源而不是免费吗？为什么开源而不是免费软件？”
是的。
组织可以向您收取提供、支持和调试开源产品的费用。
请参阅 http://www.fsf.org/ 了解更多信息。
有关其他意见，请参阅 http://www.gnu.org /philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html 和 http://www .opensource.org/docs/osd
"Can it be open source and not free? Why open source not free software?"
Yes.
An organization can charge you a fee to provide, support and debug open source products.
See http://www.fsf.org/ for more information.
For other opinions, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html and http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
我一直认为开源将自己视为务实且开放的。免费开发软件的有效商业模式
另一方面，自由软件更多的是“哲学”和道德问题（又名知识产权等）
I always think that Open Source see itself as a pragmatic & an effective business model to do software for free
At the other side, Free Softwares are more 'bout "philosophical" and moral issue (aka Intellectual propriety, etc)
开源并不意味着 0 美元成本。
0 美元成本并不意味着开源。
开源意味着当您获得软件时，您有权查看源代码并对其进行操作（在许可证指定的某些限制内）
Open Source does not imply $0 cost.
$0 Cost does not imply Open Source.
Open Source means that as you get the software, you're entitled to see the source, and do stuff to it (within certain constraints specified by the licenses)