5 ms·

>> As they say, not all open source is FOSS > This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". Yes it is, and I'm not sure the commenter does. So

>> As they say, not all open source is FOSS > This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". Yes it is, and I'm not sure the commenter does. Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. The term "free and open-source" signifies both. > This is also not true. You should review the open source definition: > https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd That is not the definition of open-source (or even "open source"), a common term for software the source code of which is available; it is the Open Source Definition, a copyrighted work published by The Open Source Initiative. Contrary to the confusing rhetoric of the Open Source Initiative, they have no claim on how anyone uses common words in the English language like open and source. Putting the two together is trivial. Open-source is an adjective referring to the fact that that source code is available. It need not refer to some particular organization's ideology.

rhn_mk1 8y ago
It does seem though that the majority of uses of "open source" describes Free Software. This is in line with the origins of the phrase as well - it was created to remove the confusion stemming from the adjective "free": https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
yarrel 8y ago
> Open-source is an adjective referring to the fact that that source code is available. It's not. Let's not muddy the waters that this term was already introduced to further.
- jake_the_third 8y ago
  I agree. Regardless of what GP's feelings on the matter are, Open Source is a proper and well-defined term that was originally used as a way to sell open software business models to high-level execs. I've never seen anyone advocate the term as open-but-not-free beyond those stating it to defend a point.
mjg59 8y ago
> Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. Other than version 1 of the Apple Public Source license, which is considered open source but not free (and also now entirely unused), what cases are you thinking of?
- carlosdp 8y ago
  Epic's Unreal Engine is another example
  - andrewshadura 8y ago
    Could you please elaborate?
    - SSLy 8y ago
      It's shared source, behind a register wall. You can clone the git tree and privately hack to your heart's content, but commercial usage and sharing of the source are under (fairly reasonable) particular rules.
- MayorMonty 8y ago
  In the past I've run into projects where the source was on GitHub where you could compile yourself, but binaries needed to be purchased. Lemme see if I can find it
  - andrewshadura 8y ago
    That is still free software and open source.
  - mjg59 8y ago
    There's plenty of non-free code on github, but it's still not open source and nobody seriously refers to it as such.
- nulbyte 8y ago
  There are specific controversies; take GNU vs OSI. GNU elaborates the differences on their site: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en..... I couldn't find OSI's take on their website, other than a general lack of reference to GNU/FSF's idea of Free Software. Then there are disagreements on specific licenses. OSI approves licenses GNU does not classify as Free, and GNU classifies licenses as Free that OSI does not approve. Then there's GitHub, which publishes a site to help you "choose an open source license," which includes a license not approved by OSI (the Unlicense), and only makes a reference to OSI as an "additional resource". Likewise, GitHub lists FSF as an "additional resource," while consistently using the term open source, not free, and not free and open. Digital Ocean explains the difference between free and open-source software: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/Free-vs-Open-Source-Software https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/Free-vs-Ope.... Eliah Kagan answers the question on AskUbuntu with some explanation of the history and plenty of links: https://askubuntu.com/questions/78958/is-there-a-difference-between-free-software-and-open-source-software#79316 https://askubuntu.com/questions/78958/is-there-a-difference-....
phoe-krk 8y ago
No. "Source available" is not the same as "open source". https://haacked.com/archive/2006/07/26/CodeAvailableVsOpenSourceVsFreeSoftware.aspx/ https://haacked.com/archive/2006/07/26/CodeAvailableVsOpenSo...
- zaroth 8y ago
  Oh well, if you say so! The point is the adjective is commonly used imprecisely, despite a minority’s desire for it to be only used to describe a precise circumstance. Genie, meet bottle.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    > despite a minority’s desire for it to be only used to describe a precise circumstance. The vast majority of the software industry uses "open source" correctly. A small minority of people and companies with a vested interest in sowing confusion to promote their "source available" business models misuses the term and creates FUD.
    - sanderjd 8y ago
      This wasn't really my experience... I went to school for CS, which involved using a bunch of open and closed source tools of different kinds. I wasn't aware of the distinctions between different kinds of open source, some of which fell within the OSI definition and some of which did not, I just knew that closed source stuff where I couldn't read the source was more annoying when things went wrong. I remember the moment much later when I realized that there was this whole (weird, to me) turf war over the definition. It still seems to me that the most straightforward definition of "open source" is just any software for which the source code is available (such that it is open, like a book).
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    Reality admits shades between Humpty Dumpty being right‡ and the Prescriptivist utopia where some ivory tower decides how language works. ‡ In "Through the Looking Glass" Humpty Dumpty asserts that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less". So it matters whether it's, say, one pundit who thinks "Source code available to certain parties under license" (e.g. Microsoft Windows has been handled this way in the past) counts as Open Source, or so common that you can find dozens of erroneous examples in every major software publication of the last five years. People writing "free reign" when they mean "free rein" might be unsalvageable at this point, whereas people saying "backslash" when they mean a forward slash - probably we can still say those people are just wrong and need to sort it out.
Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
>That is not the definition of open-source (or even "open source"), a common term for software the source code of which is available; it is the Open Source Definition, a copyrighted work published by The Open Source Initiative. This is blatantly false. You will find it very difficult to find any respected authority whose definition of open source differs from the OSI's definition.
andrewshadura 8y ago
That's incorrect. They invented the term. Contrary to the public belief, the term open source did not exist before open source definition.
- nulbyte 8y ago
  They did not. Simon Phipps, President of OSI, not only admits as much but provides a link in his blog that proves the point: https://opensource.org/blog/18418 https://opensource.org/blog/18418.
eikenberry 8y ago
> Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. Free and Open source software are basically mean to be synonyms, the latter being put forth by people to eliminate the ambiguity in English about the use of the word Free. The "free" in "free software" means libre software, not gratis software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- eridius 8y ago
  The fact that "free" in this context means libre is precisely why "free" and "open-source" are distinct concepts, and why you can have something that's "open-source but not free", and even "free but not open-source" (which in this case would basically mean you have a binary rather than source, but you're free to do whatever you want with it; you don't have the source so it's a lot harder to modify, but not impossible, and if you did modify it you'd be perfectly free to distribute that or relicense it or whatever else you want). I know the GNU defines "free" as requiring access to the source code, but that's just their opinion. Tangential rant: "Copyleft" licenses aren't actually free. The GNU claims they are, that the restrictions that copyleft licenses add don't conflict with the "central freedoms" but simply protects them. But they do restrict my freedom. If a piece of source was truly free, I should be allowed to make significant modifications and sell the resulting software (without giving out the source). Copyleft expressly prohibits this. I get that the GNU is dreaming of a utopia in which all software is open source and "free" and nobody ever makes closed-source software or charges for software. But we don't live in that utopia, and we probably never will; the closest we'll come is when we hit a post-scarcity society and do away with money, so no more keeping software closed-source in order to sell it, but there will still be reasons to keep software closed-source other than wanting to charge money for it. But I digress. The point is, Copyleft licenses rather significantly restrict my freedom as a developer. I'm not trying to debate as to whether or not that restriction is a good thing, just taking issue with calling the result "freedom".
  - NO_CHANGE 8y ago
    You're saying you're not free to change the licence of open source software, rather than not free to change the source code to it.

rhn_mk1 8y ago

It does seem though that the majority of uses of "open source" describes Free Software. This is in line with the origins of the phrase as well - it was created to remove the confusion stemming from the adjective "free": https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...

yarrel 8y ago

> Open-source is an adjective referring to the fact that that source code is available. It's not. Let's not muddy the waters that this term was already introduced to further.

jake_the_third 8y ago
I agree. Regardless of what GP's feelings on the matter are, Open Source is a proper and well-defined term that was originally used as a way to sell open software business models to high-level execs. I've never seen anyone advocate the term as open-but-not-free beyond those stating it to defend a point.

mjg59 8y ago

> Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. Other than version 1 of the Apple Public Source license, which is considered open source but not free (and also now entirely unused), what cases are you thinking of?

carlosdp 8y ago
Epic's Unreal Engine is another example
- andrewshadura 8y ago
  Could you please elaborate?
  - SSLy 8y ago
    It's shared source, behind a register wall. You can clone the git tree and privately hack to your heart's content, but commercial usage and sharing of the source are under (fairly reasonable) particular rules.
MayorMonty 8y ago
In the past I've run into projects where the source was on GitHub where you could compile yourself, but binaries needed to be purchased. Lemme see if I can find it
- andrewshadura 8y ago
  That is still free software and open source.
- mjg59 8y ago
  There's plenty of non-free code on github, but it's still not open source and nobody seriously refers to it as such.
nulbyte 8y ago
There are specific controversies; take GNU vs OSI. GNU elaborates the differences on their site: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en..... I couldn't find OSI's take on their website, other than a general lack of reference to GNU/FSF's idea of Free Software. Then there are disagreements on specific licenses. OSI approves licenses GNU does not classify as Free, and GNU classifies licenses as Free that OSI does not approve. Then there's GitHub, which publishes a site to help you "choose an open source license," which includes a license not approved by OSI (the Unlicense), and only makes a reference to OSI as an "additional resource". Likewise, GitHub lists FSF as an "additional resource," while consistently using the term open source, not free, and not free and open. Digital Ocean explains the difference between free and open-source software: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/Free-vs-Open-Source-Software https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/Free-vs-Ope.... Eliah Kagan answers the question on AskUbuntu with some explanation of the history and plenty of links: https://askubuntu.com/questions/78958/is-there-a-difference-between-free-software-and-open-source-software#79316 https://askubuntu.com/questions/78958/is-there-a-difference-....

phoe-krk 8y ago

No. "Source available" is not the same as "open source". https://haacked.com/archive/2006/07/26/CodeAvailableVsOpenSourceVsFreeSoftware.aspx/ https://haacked.com/archive/2006/07/26/CodeAvailableVsOpenSo...

zaroth 8y ago
Oh well, if you say so! The point is the adjective is commonly used imprecisely, despite a minority’s desire for it to be only used to describe a precise circumstance. Genie, meet bottle.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > despite a minority’s desire for it to be only used to describe a precise circumstance. The vast majority of the software industry uses "open source" correctly. A small minority of people and companies with a vested interest in sowing confusion to promote their "source available" business models misuses the term and creates FUD.
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    This wasn't really my experience... I went to school for CS, which involved using a bunch of open and closed source tools of different kinds. I wasn't aware of the distinctions between different kinds of open source, some of which fell within the OSI definition and some of which did not, I just knew that closed source stuff where I couldn't read the source was more annoying when things went wrong. I remember the moment much later when I realized that there was this whole (weird, to me) turf war over the definition. It still seems to me that the most straightforward definition of "open source" is just any software for which the source code is available (such that it is open, like a book).
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Reality admits shades between Humpty Dumpty being right‡ and the Prescriptivist utopia where some ivory tower decides how language works. ‡ In "Through the Looking Glass" Humpty Dumpty asserts that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less". So it matters whether it's, say, one pundit who thinks "Source code available to certain parties under license" (e.g. Microsoft Windows has been handled this way in the past) counts as Open Source, or so common that you can find dozens of erroneous examples in every major software publication of the last five years. People writing "free reign" when they mean "free rein" might be unsalvageable at this point, whereas people saying "backslash" when they mean a forward slash - probably we can still say those people are just wrong and need to sort it out.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

>That is not the definition of open-source (or even "open source"), a common term for software the source code of which is available; it is the Open Source Definition, a copyrighted work published by The Open Source Initiative. This is blatantly false. You will find it very difficult to find any respected authority whose definition of open source differs from the OSI's definition.

andrewshadura 8y ago

That's incorrect. They invented the term. Contrary to the public belief, the term open source did not exist before open source definition.

nulbyte 8y ago
They did not. Simon Phipps, President of OSI, not only admits as much but provides a link in his blog that proves the point: https://opensource.org/blog/18418 https://opensource.org/blog/18418.

eikenberry 8y ago

> Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. Free and Open source software are basically mean to be synonyms, the latter being put forth by people to eliminate the ambiguity in English about the use of the word Free. The "free" in "free software" means libre software, not gratis software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

eridius 8y ago
The fact that "free" in this context means libre is precisely why "free" and "open-source" are distinct concepts, and why you can have something that's "open-source but not free", and even "free but not open-source" (which in this case would basically mean you have a binary rather than source, but you're free to do whatever you want with it; you don't have the source so it's a lot harder to modify, but not impossible, and if you did modify it you'd be perfectly free to distribute that or relicense it or whatever else you want). I know the GNU defines "free" as requiring access to the source code, but that's just their opinion. Tangential rant: "Copyleft" licenses aren't actually free. The GNU claims they are, that the restrictions that copyleft licenses add don't conflict with the "central freedoms" but simply protects them. But they do restrict my freedom. If a piece of source was truly free, I should be allowed to make significant modifications and sell the resulting software (without giving out the source). Copyleft expressly prohibits this. I get that the GNU is dreaming of a utopia in which all software is open source and "free" and nobody ever makes closed-source software or charges for software. But we don't live in that utopia, and we probably never will; the closest we'll come is when we hit a post-scarcity society and do away with money, so no more keeping software closed-source in order to sell it, but there will still be reasons to keep software closed-source other than wanting to charge money for it. But I digress. The point is, Copyleft licenses rather significantly restrict my freedom as a developer. I'm not trying to debate as to whether or not that restriction is a good thing, just taking issue with calling the result "freedom".
- NO_CHANGE 8y ago
  You're saying you're not free to change the licence of open source software, rather than not free to change the source code to it.