4 ms·

Open source is not free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point..

Open source is not free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point..... Don't get me wrong, I think open source is great and far better than proprietary software, but we should use the correct terminology.

pram 10y ago
They literally link and quote the FSF definition in the article, did you even read it? This post is basically white noise.
- rolodato 10y ago
  I have read it. They use a misleading definition of "free software": > Often the first thing you think of when you hear Open Source is “free”. In the software world, free software is often associated with being the inferior choice. That’s especially true given that historically, many businesses offer an inferior version of their product for free Free software has a well-established definition, and that's the definition that should be used. Especially in an article that aims to educate people about the benefits of open source and free software.
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    The FSF's definition of "free software" has been around for far less than the adjective free, and when some software is provided for no fee while being proprietary we're still stuck using the same word. How would you have wanted him to write that sentence? Insert "for no charge" or "gratis" everywhere?
LewisJEllis 10y ago
Open source is not necessarily free software, but often is, as that link clarifies: > Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. The distinctions made in your citation make it clear that Sentry is both open source and free. I don't think there's any incorrect terminology being used here; can you point to a specific misuse?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jordigh 10y ago
> Open source is not free software Yes it is, or it's intended to mean the same thing, and that essay you linked to acknowledges several times that it's the same thing (or nearly the same thing). Open source and free software are kind of like climate change and global warming: two terms that refer to almost the same thing but have different political slants. http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... The reason I insist so much upon this is that I want people to remember that in order to qualify as "open source" it must provide the same freedoms as free software. How and why it provides those freedoms is a matter of philosophical differences, but in the end results in nearly the same set of free and open source licenses. It is very rare and unusual for the OSI and the FSF to disagree on licenses.
- HerraBRE 10y ago
  Although the licenses and in some cases even the software is the same, the communities are very different. The Open Source community is creating high quality technology for techies to build great things. The Free Software community is trying to protect end-user rights. Those are very, very different things. Both have value, and they often overlap, but claiming they are the same is in my opinion quite disrespectful to the motivations of the people doing the work. Free Software advocates will as a result tend to prefer copyleft style licenses that protect users, while Open Source people usually prefer liberal "business friendly" licenses that let them do whatever they like with the technology - including creating proprietary cloud-based or closed-source products (which deny the end-user rights the Free Software folks want to protect). (edited slightly for clarification and to be less judgemental)

pram 10y ago

They literally link and quote the FSF definition in the article, did you even read it? This post is basically white noise.

rolodato 10y ago
I have read it. They use a misleading definition of "free software": > Often the first thing you think of when you hear Open Source is “free”. In the software world, free software is often associated with being the inferior choice. That’s especially true given that historically, many businesses offer an inferior version of their product for free Free software has a well-established definition, and that's the definition that should be used. Especially in an article that aims to educate people about the benefits of open source and free software.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  The FSF's definition of "free software" has been around for far less than the adjective free, and when some software is provided for no fee while being proprietary we're still stuck using the same word. How would you have wanted him to write that sentence? Insert "for no charge" or "gratis" everywhere?

LewisJEllis 10y ago

Open source is not necessarily free software, but often is, as that link clarifies: > Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. The distinctions made in your citation make it clear that Sentry is both open source and free. I don't think there's any incorrect terminology being used here; can you point to a specific misuse?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jordigh 10y ago

> Open source is not free software Yes it is, or it's intended to mean the same thing, and that essay you linked to acknowledges several times that it's the same thing (or nearly the same thing). Open source and free software are kind of like climate change and global warming: two terms that refer to almost the same thing but have different political slants. http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... The reason I insist so much upon this is that I want people to remember that in order to qualify as "open source" it must provide the same freedoms as free software. How and why it provides those freedoms is a matter of philosophical differences, but in the end results in nearly the same set of free and open source licenses. It is very rare and unusual for the OSI and the FSF to disagree on licenses.

HerraBRE 10y ago
Although the licenses and in some cases even the software is the same, the communities are very different. The Open Source community is creating high quality technology for techies to build great things. The Free Software community is trying to protect end-user rights. Those are very, very different things. Both have value, and they often overlap, but claiming they are the same is in my opinion quite disrespectful to the motivations of the people doing the work. Free Software advocates will as a result tend to prefer copyleft style licenses that protect users, while Open Source people usually prefer liberal "business friendly" licenses that let them do whatever they like with the technology - including creating proprietary cloud-based or closed-source products (which deny the end-user rights the Free Software folks want to protect). (edited slightly for clarification and to be less judgemental)