3 ms·
> The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. Canonical don't conform to this definition of Free, instead they ha
by cabalamat 16y ago
> The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. Canonical don't conform to this definition of Free, instead they have something different, that probably works better for them.
The FSF have a Free Software Definition; similarly the OSF have an Open Source Definition. This is good, because it means that when someone says "free software" or "open source", we can all agree on what these terms mean.
- DisposaBoy 16y agoI don't think that is the reality at all, unfortunately. The terms are used interchangably all the time. There's also FOSS which seems to merge them. The same seems to be happening with OS and FS as philosophies in that most? people seem to see them as the same thing.
- cabalamat 16y ago> I don't think that is the reality at all, unfortunately. If someone describes something as "free software" and it doesn't satisfy the FSF's definition of the term, I'd regard them as dishonest. Ditto with "open source". > The terms are used interchangably all the time. For practical purposes, I think FSD == OSD. > The same seems to be happening with OS and FS as philosophies in that most? people seem to see them as the same thing. Well they are. The software stack I'm using to write this with includes Linux/X/Gnome/Firefox, all of which are both free software and open source.