4 ms·

> Unsure of exact licensing compatibility so I can't say it's all Free Software. Open source and free software mean the same thing, or at least they intend to

by jordigh 11y ago

> Unsure of exact licensing compatibility so I can't say it's all Free Software. Open source and free software mean the same thing, or at least they intend to mean the same thing. There are very few obscure examples where they differ (for example, the NASA license). You are very unlikely to run across a difference. https://opensource.org/faq#free-software https://opensource.org/faq#free-software https://lobste.rs/s/lexyz5/why_open_source_misses_the_point_of_free_software/comments/rcdtg0#c_rcdtg0 https://lobste.rs/s/lexyz5/why_open_source_misses_the_point_...

the_af 11y ago
They do not mean the same thing. They are often coincidentally the same thing, but philosophically they are not the same: "Why 'Free Software' is better than 'Open Source'": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h... (Note: the title is not mine)
- jordigh 11y ago
  No, the intention of "open source" was to have a synonym for "free software". http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... They mean the same thing in the same way that "digital rights management" and "digital restrictions management" means the same thing: they refer to the same thing, but give a different slant to refer to the same thing.
  - the_af 11y ago
    Like you mentioned in your article, this indeed seems to be Bruce Perens' opinion. However, notice how both Eric Raymond (on the side of open source) and Richard Stallman (on the side of free software) disagree with him. If you listen to people like Eric Raymond, open source is all about quality. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow", etc. If you listen to people like Richard Stallman, free software is all about users' rights: in some cases free software may be of higher quality than comparable proprietary software, but that's just a welcome side-effect -- what matters is that it respects users' rights. In this view, free software would be worthwhile even if it was technically inferior to contemporary proprietary software. Or to put it another way: if Eric Raymond one days wakes up convinced that Open Source is technically inferior, he must drop it in order to remain consistent with his own justifications. If Richard Stallman one day wakes up convinced Free Software is technically inferior, he will remain committed to it, since technical quality was never his primary goal. I'd say that's a pretty big philosophical difference!
    - jordigh 11y ago
      Yes, I'm very well that they refer to philosophical differences. But they are both talking about the same damn software. Not the same philosophy, but the same software. This is something everyone agrees about, not just Bruce Perens. This is also the official position of OSI, not just Bruce Perens': that open source is just another name for free software.
      - jeena 11y ago
        That is not true, because every free software is open source, but not every open source software is free. (this is me oversimplifying to make a point)
        ymse 11y ago
        It's not that simple. Open source implies the source is out there for anyone to study. Free software is not necessarily free of charge and readily available. Nothing prevents you from paywalling a GPL program as long as you distribute sources to legitimate users on request. Free as in freedom, not as in beer.
        richardfontana 11y ago
        Open source as formally defined by the OSI is also not necessarily free of charge and readily available to everyone. The GPL of course is an open source license, some revisionist tendencies to use "open source" to refer only to non-GPL-family licenses notwithstanding.
        ymse 11y ago
        I had never looked up the OSI definition[0], but you are of course entirely correct. So the difference between free and open source software is the "four freedoms", which I think we all knew to begin with.. :) 0: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

by jordigh 11y ago

the_af 11y ago

They do not mean the same thing. They are often coincidentally the same thing, but philosophically they are not the same: "Why 'Free Software' is better than 'Open Source'": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h... (Note: the title is not mine)

jordigh 11y ago
No, the intention of "open source" was to have a synonym for "free software". http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... They mean the same thing in the same way that "digital rights management" and "digital restrictions management" means the same thing: they refer to the same thing, but give a different slant to refer to the same thing.
- the_af 11y ago
  Like you mentioned in your article, this indeed seems to be Bruce Perens' opinion. However, notice how both Eric Raymond (on the side of open source) and Richard Stallman (on the side of free software) disagree with him. If you listen to people like Eric Raymond, open source is all about quality. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow", etc. If you listen to people like Richard Stallman, free software is all about users' rights: in some cases free software may be of higher quality than comparable proprietary software, but that's just a welcome side-effect -- what matters is that it respects users' rights. In this view, free software would be worthwhile even if it was technically inferior to contemporary proprietary software. Or to put it another way: if Eric Raymond one days wakes up convinced that Open Source is technically inferior, he must drop it in order to remain consistent with his own justifications. If Richard Stallman one day wakes up convinced Free Software is technically inferior, he will remain committed to it, since technical quality was never his primary goal. I'd say that's a pretty big philosophical difference!
  - jordigh 11y ago
    Yes, I'm very well that they refer to philosophical differences. But they are both talking about the same damn software. Not the same philosophy, but the same software. This is something everyone agrees about, not just Bruce Perens. This is also the official position of OSI, not just Bruce Perens': that open source is just another name for free software.
    - jeena 11y ago
      That is not true, because every free software is open source, but not every open source software is free. (this is me oversimplifying to make a point)
      - ymse 11y ago
        It's not that simple. Open source implies the source is out there for anyone to study. Free software is not necessarily free of charge and readily available. Nothing prevents you from paywalling a GPL program as long as you distribute sources to legitimate users on request. Free as in freedom, not as in beer.
        richardfontana 11y ago
        Open source as formally defined by the OSI is also not necessarily free of charge and readily available to everyone. The GPL of course is an open source license, some revisionist tendencies to use "open source" to refer only to non-GPL-family licenses notwithstanding.
        ymse 11y ago
        I had never looked up the OSI definition[0], but you are of course entirely correct. So the difference between free and open source software is the "four freedoms", which I think we all knew to begin with.. :) 0: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd