5 ms·

For people interested in the legalities of licenses, it's released under the Apache License 2.0 which is a "free software" opensource license that is compatible

For people interested in the legalities of licenses, it's released under the Apache License 2.0 which is a "free software" opensource license that is compatible when combined with GPL3, but not with GPL 1 or 2. the Apache 2.0 license includes not just copyright but patent licensing, so the software will contain no hidden patent restrictions for patents owned by the creators and contributors.

jordigh 10y ago
Why did you quote free software but not opensource? I am curious to know what the difference in your writing intended to convey.
- TuringTest 10y ago
  That may be because "free software" is still an ambiguous term, while open source is relatively unambiguous. I prefer to use Free Software as my disambiguator of choice, but I understand the GP using the other form, and occasionally use it myself.
  - jordigh 10y ago
    In my experience, people frequently think that "open source" means a bunch of different things, such as "visible source code" (and nothing more) or "opposite of commercial" (i.e. no money allowed) or "inviting public participation" (as in "open source governance").
  - dmm 10y ago
    > while open source is relatively unambiguous In my experience both terms are ambiguous. Many people seem to believe that "open source" simply means the source is available for examination. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3205771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3205771
  - bachmeier 10y ago
    Both are ambiguous, as explained here: https://opensource.org/faq#free-software https://opensource.org/faq#free-software If you want to make an unambiguous statement, use "OSI approved license".
- brudgers 10y ago
  I think a charitable reading would be that it was intended to convey something other than offense.
  - jordigh 10y ago
    Of course. I don't think anyone is offended. But what was the intended meaning? Can you figure it out?
    - brudgers 10y ago
      I take it as trying, apparently without success, to avoid stepping on a land mine.

jordigh 10y ago

Why did you quote free software but not opensource? I am curious to know what the difference in your writing intended to convey.

TuringTest 10y ago
That may be because "free software" is still an ambiguous term, while open source is relatively unambiguous. I prefer to use Free Software as my disambiguator of choice, but I understand the GP using the other form, and occasionally use it myself.
- jordigh 10y ago
  In my experience, people frequently think that "open source" means a bunch of different things, such as "visible source code" (and nothing more) or "opposite of commercial" (i.e. no money allowed) or "inviting public participation" (as in "open source governance").
- dmm 10y ago
  > while open source is relatively unambiguous In my experience both terms are ambiguous. Many people seem to believe that "open source" simply means the source is available for examination. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3205771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3205771
- bachmeier 10y ago
  Both are ambiguous, as explained here: https://opensource.org/faq#free-software https://opensource.org/faq#free-software If you want to make an unambiguous statement, use "OSI approved license".
brudgers 10y ago
I think a charitable reading would be that it was intended to convey something other than offense.
- jordigh 10y ago
  Of course. I don't think anyone is offended. But what was the intended meaning? Can you figure it out?
  - brudgers 10y ago
    I take it as trying, apparently without success, to avoid stepping on a land mine.