3 ms·

>not all open source is FOSS >This is not the case of all open source licenses. false. open source is literally just a friendlier name and otherwise rebrandin

by syrrim 8y ago

>not all open source is FOSS >This is not the case of all open source licenses. false. open source is literally just a friendlier name and otherwise rebranding of free software. all open source is free software and all free software is open source. if you are contributing to FOSS qua FOSS, then you want it to remain FOSS. FOSS refers to that software which guarantees your right to change it, so if you are making changes, you clearly benefit from it remaining FOSS. note further the game theoretic implications: if a minority of projects use CLAs, it is possible to avoid contributing to such projects. If people are willing to contribute to such projects, then their number might expand. Those interested in the continuation of FOSS, which should be anyone, especially those interested in software development, should therefore be interested in not signing CLAs.

Legogris 8y ago
> false. open source is literally just a friendlier name and otherwise rebranding of free software. This is not how anyone I have ever talked to thinks about it. You are probably confusing Free Software[0] with open source software[1]. If you still hold your point we are arguing semantics and stating that your interpretation (a minority interpretation) is right and that most of the software industry and open source community is wrong. > if you are contributing to FOSS qua FOSS, then you want it to remain FOSS Not necessarily. > note further the game theoretic implications: if a minority of projects use CLAs, it is possible to avoid contributing to such projects. If people are willing to contribute to such projects, then their number might expand. Those interested in the continuation of FOSS, which should be anyone, especially those interested in software development, should therefore be interested in not signing CLAs. You're completely right. Important factor to be aware of as a contributor for sure. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1]: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- syrrim 8y ago
  >> if you are contributing to FOSS qua FOSS, then you want it to remain FOSS >Not necessarily. Perhaps you missed the "qua FOSS"? This is latin for "because it is", in this context "contributing to FOSS because it is FOSS". the osd guarantees the relevant right for an individual to change the software. if you apreciate this right, then you should work to preserve it.
- dllthomas 8y ago
  "Literally just a friendlier name" is more-or-less the OSI's spin on the split; those remaining with the FSF were concerned about a shift of focus away from principles. (With the obvious caveat that these are generalizations about a lot of individuals.) But in practical terms, "free software" and "open source software" as used by the FSF and the OSI describe the same set of software. Consider their respective license lists: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
- aidenn0 8y ago
  Your sources contradict your premise. The core tenants of the two are the same; many of those who prefer the term "Free Software" do so because the term "Open Source" implies that providing the source code is all that's necessary, but at least "Open Source" as used by the OSD is synonymous. OSI #5-10 are kind of a spelled out form of Freedom 0 OSI #2 maps pretty much directly onto Freedom 1 (The title of OSI #2 just says source code, but the body text specifies more) OSI #1 is Freedom 2 OSI #3 maps to Freedom 3, with #4 being a clarification of what is allowed.
LocalH 8y ago
Not all open source is free software. I'm certain there exists code to which you can legally gain access (thus the source is "open"), that is not "free software" (in other words, under a license that has clauses incompatible with "free software").

by syrrim 8y ago

Legogris 8y ago

> false. open source is literally just a friendlier name and otherwise rebranding of free software. This is not how anyone I have ever talked to thinks about it. You are probably confusing Free Software[0] with open source software[1]. If you still hold your point we are arguing semantics and stating that your interpretation (a minority interpretation) is right and that most of the software industry and open source community is wrong. > if you are contributing to FOSS qua FOSS, then you want it to remain FOSS Not necessarily. > note further the game theoretic implications: if a minority of projects use CLAs, it is possible to avoid contributing to such projects. If people are willing to contribute to such projects, then their number might expand. Those interested in the continuation of FOSS, which should be anyone, especially those interested in software development, should therefore be interested in not signing CLAs. You're completely right. Important factor to be aware of as a contributor for sure. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1]: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

syrrim 8y ago
>> if you are contributing to FOSS qua FOSS, then you want it to remain FOSS >Not necessarily. Perhaps you missed the "qua FOSS"? This is latin for "because it is", in this context "contributing to FOSS because it is FOSS". the osd guarantees the relevant right for an individual to change the software. if you apreciate this right, then you should work to preserve it.
dllthomas 8y ago
"Literally just a friendlier name" is more-or-less the OSI's spin on the split; those remaining with the FSF were concerned about a shift of focus away from principles. (With the obvious caveat that these are generalizations about a lot of individuals.) But in practical terms, "free software" and "open source software" as used by the FSF and the OSI describe the same set of software. Consider their respective license lists: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
aidenn0 8y ago
Your sources contradict your premise. The core tenants of the two are the same; many of those who prefer the term "Free Software" do so because the term "Open Source" implies that providing the source code is all that's necessary, but at least "Open Source" as used by the OSD is synonymous. OSI #5-10 are kind of a spelled out form of Freedom 0 OSI #2 maps pretty much directly onto Freedom 1 (The title of OSI #2 just says source code, but the body text specifies more) OSI #1 is Freedom 2 OSI #3 maps to Freedom 3, with #4 being a clarification of what is allowed.

LocalH 8y ago

Not all open source is free software. I'm certain there exists code to which you can legally gain access (thus the source is "open"), that is not "free software" (in other words, under a license that has clauses incompatible with "free software").