3 ms·

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. N

by ymse 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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
  - icebraining 10y ago
    The OSI definition includes the four freedoms, just stated in different ways: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" - "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor." "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" - "The program must include source code (...) The license must allow modifications and derived works" "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor" - "The program (...) must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others" - "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." That's why almost all software considered "open source" is also "free software" and vice-versa.

by ymse 10y ago

richardfontana 10y 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 10y 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
- icebraining 10y ago
  The OSI definition includes the four freedoms, just stated in different ways: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" - "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor." "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" - "The program must include source code (...) The license must allow modifications and derived works" "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor" - "The program (...) must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others" - "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." That's why almost all software considered "open source" is also "free software" and vice-versa.