4 ms·

Free software and open source aren't always the same thing though. Free Software is software that through the license enforces a philosophy. Open source is sof

by SEJeff 8y ago

Free software and open source aren't always the same thing though. Free Software is software that through the license enforces a philosophy. Open source is software that through the license enforces the source code to remain open. I'm not a fan of RMS or his attitudes on most things, but am a strong OSS fan as it is the best way to develop and maintain software.

Jedd 8y ago
> Free software and open source aren't always the same thing though. Entirely agree, hence I drew the distinction. I eschew 'open source' as it's highly ambiguous, and mostly misses the point. > Free Software is software that through the license enforces a philosophy. I would disagree. Free software ensures the user has certain freedoms. > Open source is software that through the license enforces the source code to remain open. This is a very circular definition -- open source is open. > I'm not a fan of RMS or his attitudes on most things, but am a strong OSS fan as it is the best way to develop and maintain software. As it happens, rms is no fan of OSS.
- SEJeff 8y ago
  RMS has said publically that proprietary software should be illegal, and that free software guarantees user freedoms. This is a philosophy, and one that opines every user wants to become a developer. For things like emacs, and much of GNU, this is true, for most of the rest of the world, this is not. I eschew free software because I'm not about forcing my views on others (which is literally the mission of GNU). I'm about developing software to be the best it can be, and maybe meeting some friends along the way. Open source, being the best software development model overall, allows me to meet that goal. You could almost say some of RMS's more extreme quirks border on authoritarian (see the example with the abortion joke in the libc manual he FORBADE removal of and demanded be re-added when a dev simply overruled him). He's not acting in a manner that encourages "freedom", but as a simple and obvious dictator of all things GNU or claiming to be GNU. He's frequently tried to shape the path of GNOME (which I am a former foundation member and was on the sysadmin team) in areas he literally has no business weighing in on. Then there are some more gross personality problems, like his sexism, or tendency to actually eat his toenail gunk[1], or to ever refuse to be wrong on anything, even when an entire community disagrees with him. Dr Stallman has done a great deal of good for the world with Free Software, however like the VAX and PDP-11, his time has passed. Open source won just like Linux won over GNU/Hurd. It is ok that he won, by losing. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
  - Jedd 8y ago
    rms's toenails aside, I'd suggest that every licence is about enforcing a set of views on others. There are plenty of licences to choose from, so it's fairly easy to find one compatible with your own views. In the context of GP's (beginningguava) comment about 'open source projects' needing to change their licensing to prevent corporations making money by SaaSing various tools, my point was twofold - first, by definition you can't have free software with restrictions like that, and second you'd be merely fighting the symptoms (with little chance of success). Aside - I'm curious what you mean by the 'open source software development model', as I don't think that's actually a thing.
    - SEJeff 8y ago
      Fair enough, the open source software development model is no different in reality from the free software development model generally speaking. It goes back to ESR's The Cathedral and the Bazaar and is what he deems "the bazaar model" or "bazaar style" before him, Larry Augustin, and Bruce Perens (if memory serves) went on to coin the phrase "open source". Even if you don't necessarily agree with ESR (I see him in a similar vein as RMS fwiw), his thoughts on software development models have generally speaking, been proven true.
ric2b 8y ago
> Free Software is software that through the license enforces a philosophy. This is incorrect, licenses like MIT or BSD are also free software license because they afford the 4 freedoms to the user (even though they don't enforce them on derivative works). Licenses like the Redis one are open-source but not free software because they place limitations on the user (can't sell hosted service, IIRC)
- antirez 8y ago
  Redis is BSD licensed. You mean some Redis module developed independently by Redis Labs that are not part of Redis itself.

by SEJeff 8y ago

Jedd 8y ago

> Free software and open source aren't always the same thing though. Entirely agree, hence I drew the distinction. I eschew 'open source' as it's highly ambiguous, and mostly misses the point. > Free Software is software that through the license enforces a philosophy. I would disagree. Free software ensures the user has certain freedoms. > Open source is software that through the license enforces the source code to remain open. This is a very circular definition -- open source is open. > I'm not a fan of RMS or his attitudes on most things, but am a strong OSS fan as it is the best way to develop and maintain software. As it happens, rms is no fan of OSS.

SEJeff 8y ago
RMS has said publically that proprietary software should be illegal, and that free software guarantees user freedoms. This is a philosophy, and one that opines every user wants to become a developer. For things like emacs, and much of GNU, this is true, for most of the rest of the world, this is not. I eschew free software because I'm not about forcing my views on others (which is literally the mission of GNU). I'm about developing software to be the best it can be, and maybe meeting some friends along the way. Open source, being the best software development model overall, allows me to meet that goal. You could almost say some of RMS's more extreme quirks border on authoritarian (see the example with the abortion joke in the libc manual he FORBADE removal of and demanded be re-added when a dev simply overruled him). He's not acting in a manner that encourages "freedom", but as a simple and obvious dictator of all things GNU or claiming to be GNU. He's frequently tried to shape the path of GNOME (which I am a former foundation member and was on the sysadmin team) in areas he literally has no business weighing in on. Then there are some more gross personality problems, like his sexism, or tendency to actually eat his toenail gunk[1], or to ever refuse to be wrong on anything, even when an entire community disagrees with him. Dr Stallman has done a great deal of good for the world with Free Software, however like the VAX and PDP-11, his time has passed. Open source won just like Linux won over GNU/Hurd. It is ok that he won, by losing. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
- Jedd 8y ago
  rms's toenails aside, I'd suggest that every licence is about enforcing a set of views on others. There are plenty of licences to choose from, so it's fairly easy to find one compatible with your own views. In the context of GP's (beginningguava) comment about 'open source projects' needing to change their licensing to prevent corporations making money by SaaSing various tools, my point was twofold - first, by definition you can't have free software with restrictions like that, and second you'd be merely fighting the symptoms (with little chance of success). Aside - I'm curious what you mean by the 'open source software development model', as I don't think that's actually a thing.
  - SEJeff 8y ago
    Fair enough, the open source software development model is no different in reality from the free software development model generally speaking. It goes back to ESR's The Cathedral and the Bazaar and is what he deems "the bazaar model" or "bazaar style" before him, Larry Augustin, and Bruce Perens (if memory serves) went on to coin the phrase "open source". Even if you don't necessarily agree with ESR (I see him in a similar vein as RMS fwiw), his thoughts on software development models have generally speaking, been proven true.

ric2b 8y ago

> Free Software is software that through the license enforces a philosophy. This is incorrect, licenses like MIT or BSD are also free software license because they afford the 4 freedoms to the user (even though they don't enforce them on derivative works). Licenses like the Redis one are open-source but not free software because they place limitations on the user (can't sell hosted service, IIRC)

antirez 8y ago
Redis is BSD licensed. You mean some Redis module developed independently by Redis Labs that are not part of Redis itself.