4 ms·

I agree with both of your points. I will add that if the difference between the FSF and OSI definitions of OSI don't matter...perhaps they should merge and joi

by smush 8y ago

I agree with both of your points. I will add that if the difference between the FSF and OSI definitions of OSI don't matter...perhaps they should merge and join forces? Get the (not that it sounds great to say it this way) least common denominator between the two definitions, unify the Orgs, and present a unified front to prospective learners. There's propriety software and FOSS, the former word is defined in the dictionary, the latter word/acronym is defined at freesoftwareisopensource.stallman , rthar than the "it's over here at the FSF websites, on your right, past the "Linux should be called GNU/Linux arguments" aisle."

steveklabnik 8y ago
Maybe, but I can't possibly see it happening. Two decades of bad blood is non-trivial to resolve, and I'm not sure that the two projects really are trying to do the same thing. From the FSF side, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... for example.
jasode 8y ago
>if the difference between the FSF and OSI definitions of OSI don't matter...perhaps they should merge and join forces? I don't see how merging would be possible because FSF and OSI have incompatible philosophical differences to sharing/distributing software. E.g. OSI is compatible with permissive licenses such as MIT License and BSD License. That's totally against what FSF and Stallman is about and their GPL license reflects that philosophy.
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  The MIT and BSD licenses are also Free Software licenses, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html > This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software. > > This is a fine license for a small program. A larger program usually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on a lax permissive license for one, we recommend the Apache 2.0 license since it protects users from patent treachery. and > This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software nonfree. Note that some software licences may qualify as being a free software license, yet be not compatible with the GPL. Those are two different things.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > OSI is compatible with permissive licenses such as MIT License and BSD License. That's totally against what FSF and Stallman is about Essentially all of the permissive OSI-blessed “open source” licenses are also FSF-blessed “free software licenses”; they are not “totally against what the FSF and Stallman is all about.”
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasode 8y ago
    >Essentially all of the permissive OSI-blessed “open source” licenses are also FSF-blessed “free software licenses”; they are not “totally against what the FSF and Stallman is all about.” To both dragonwriter and steveklabnik, Saying "totally against" was too strong. Let me try to clarify. Yes, the GNU license list has "The following licenses qualify as free software licenses, and are compatible with the GNU GPL."[1] To me, that isn't really about BSD & MIT being compatible with underlying philosophy of FSF and Stallman. That just says using those licenses as part of GPL projects is acceptable. However, they don't really fulfill Stallman's strategy and objectives. An example of what I mean by BSD & MIT not aligning with Stallman's objectives would be past comments about him missing the chance to include Chris Lattner's LLVM/clang project in GCC.[2] Presumably, Stallman would have not let llvm/clang become permissive-BSD license like Lattner did. He would prefer llvm/clang's valuable capabilities to be licensed as copyleft-GPL just like GCC. (More commentary on that style of thinking.[3]) To him, the permissive licenses "helps the enemies create proprietary software" (paraphrasing previous Stallman comments). That's why I believe FSF and OSI have fundamental incompatibilities. The MIT & BSD licenses being on the GNU "approved" list doesn't really solve that. EDIT to add reply to: >The FSF and OSI are broadly aligned on what freedom software should be provide. I disagree because it seems that Stallman has taken great pains to explain why they are not aligned on the freedoms that software should provide. There is some overlap between FSF and OSI but that's different from alignment. [1] from: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00594.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00... [3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
type0 8y ago
> perhaps they should merge and join forces? I wish that too, the problem off course is that FSF as an organization is absolutist and that would never work. This recent install-fest threads illustrates this vividly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19435791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19435791

by smush 8y ago

steveklabnik 8y ago

Maybe, but I can't possibly see it happening. Two decades of bad blood is non-trivial to resolve, and I'm not sure that the two projects really are trying to do the same thing. From the FSF side, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... for example.

jasode 8y ago

>if the difference between the FSF and OSI definitions of OSI don't matter...perhaps they should merge and join forces? I don't see how merging would be possible because FSF and OSI have incompatible philosophical differences to sharing/distributing software. E.g. OSI is compatible with permissive licenses such as MIT License and BSD License. That's totally against what FSF and Stallman is about and their GPL license reflects that philosophy.

steveklabnik 8y ago
The MIT and BSD licenses are also Free Software licenses, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html > This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software. > > This is a fine license for a small program. A larger program usually ought to be copyleft; but if you are set on a lax permissive license for one, we recommend the Apache 2.0 license since it protects users from patent treachery. and > This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software nonfree. Note that some software licences may qualify as being a free software license, yet be not compatible with the GPL. Those are two different things.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> OSI is compatible with permissive licenses such as MIT License and BSD License. That's totally against what FSF and Stallman is about Essentially all of the permissive OSI-blessed “open source” licenses are also FSF-blessed “free software licenses”; they are not “totally against what the FSF and Stallman is all about.”
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jasode 8y ago
  >Essentially all of the permissive OSI-blessed “open source” licenses are also FSF-blessed “free software licenses”; they are not “totally against what the FSF and Stallman is all about.” To both dragonwriter and steveklabnik, Saying "totally against" was too strong. Let me try to clarify. Yes, the GNU license list has "The following licenses qualify as free software licenses, and are compatible with the GNU GPL."[1] To me, that isn't really about BSD & MIT being compatible with underlying philosophy of FSF and Stallman. That just says using those licenses as part of GPL projects is acceptable. However, they don't really fulfill Stallman's strategy and objectives. An example of what I mean by BSD & MIT not aligning with Stallman's objectives would be past comments about him missing the chance to include Chris Lattner's LLVM/clang project in GCC.[2] Presumably, Stallman would have not let llvm/clang become permissive-BSD license like Lattner did. He would prefer llvm/clang's valuable capabilities to be licensed as copyleft-GPL just like GCC. (More commentary on that style of thinking.[3]) To him, the permissive licenses "helps the enemies create proprietary software" (paraphrasing previous Stallman comments). That's why I believe FSF and OSI have fundamental incompatibilities. The MIT & BSD licenses being on the GNU "approved" list doesn't really solve that. EDIT to add reply to: >The FSF and OSI are broadly aligned on what freedom software should be provide. I disagree because it seems that Stallman has taken great pains to explain why they are not aligned on the freedoms that software should provide. There is some overlap between FSF and OSI but that's different from alignment. [1] from: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00594.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00... [3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

type0 8y ago

> perhaps they should merge and join forces? I wish that too, the problem off course is that FSF as an organization is absolutist and that would never work. This recent install-fest threads illustrates this vividly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19435791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19435791