3 ms·

The open source that you call "isn't free as in speech" is actually Free Software. You are able to develop with it in whatever way you want. The requirement is

The open source that you call "isn't free as in speech" is actually Free Software. You are able to develop with it in whatever way you want. The requirement is that whatever you develop is also Free Software and is distributed whenever it is used. This is what Stallman has in mind when he talks about free software. Your freedom to develop above free software developed by others cannot come at the cost of others' freedom to develop above your software that has enjoyed the fruits of said freedom.

julienb_sea 8y ago
This distinction seems highly misleading. Free is not free if it comes with a litany of restrictions. Licensing concerns pretty much blacklist a swath of open source software for actual use in a business context. Sure, many companies are willing to open source their developer friendly projects. Microsoft with VSCode is a great example. Same with Atlassian's contributions to complex open source UI components. Frankly, these are not done as revenue drivers, but instead as recruiting tools and ecosystem builders. Those benefits are ancillary to the core competency of the parent company. It does not make sense for companies to open source all of their code. It's far too easy in today's world to stand up a highly reliable, performant and scalable SaaS application. Protecting the code behind a SaaS application allows companies to grow and protect themselves at an early stage. IMO this is a significant benefit to the open source community given the open source contributions that established SaaS companies tend to eventually move into. "Free" software is not free at all if people are unable to use it in their systems for fear of legal repercussions.
- chillacy 8y ago
  Yes it is confusing but that's what Free software means in the original incarnation when Richard Stallman coined it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

julienb_sea 8y ago

This distinction seems highly misleading. Free is not free if it comes with a litany of restrictions. Licensing concerns pretty much blacklist a swath of open source software for actual use in a business context. Sure, many companies are willing to open source their developer friendly projects. Microsoft with VSCode is a great example. Same with Atlassian's contributions to complex open source UI components. Frankly, these are not done as revenue drivers, but instead as recruiting tools and ecosystem builders. Those benefits are ancillary to the core competency of the parent company. It does not make sense for companies to open source all of their code. It's far too easy in today's world to stand up a highly reliable, performant and scalable SaaS application. Protecting the code behind a SaaS application allows companies to grow and protect themselves at an early stage. IMO this is a significant benefit to the open source community given the open source contributions that established SaaS companies tend to eventually move into. "Free" software is not free at all if people are unable to use it in their systems for fear of legal repercussions.

chillacy 8y ago
Yes it is confusing but that's what Free software means in the original incarnation when Richard Stallman coined it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html