4 ms·

That is untrue. The term "free software" was effectively coined by RMS & The Free Software Foundation. It is used explicitly when referring to copyleft license

That is untrue. The term "free software" was effectively coined by RMS & The Free Software Foundation. It is used explicitly when referring to copyleft licenses, which restrict certain uses of the licensed software in order to protect user freedoms. You can argue that other people use the term in other ways, but the most commonly accepted definition is the one used by the FSF. The term "open source" is somewhat vague. Software that is merely "open source" is not necessarily licensed in a way that allows redistribution/modification. The only thing guaranteed about "open source" software is that you can read the source.

throwaway2048 7y ago
The only people looking to redefine (yes, redefine, there is no supposed ongoing dispute or vagueness about what it means to be FLOSS software) are those looking to push their own agenda, its not an honest conversation and never has been.
- kemitchell 7y ago
  There is heaps of vagueness in both the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition, especially about copyleft. See, e.g.: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regulation.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regul... https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/14/free-to-take-freedom.html https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/14/free-to-take-freedom... There are heaps of disputes about whether licenses qualify. Check OSI's license-review list, or Twitter, or, frankly, HN.
unimpressive 7y ago
>The only thing guaranteed about "open source" software is that you can read the source. 'Open Source' was/is a rebranding of the term 'Free Software' to make it easier to sell to suits. Eric Raymond has said as much about his invention of the phrase. The idea that it's just about "being able to read the source" is wrong. It's not vague at all, you just didn't do your research. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
- lliamander 7y ago
  Quibble: ESR did not coin (nor did he claim to coin) open source, that honor goes to Christine Peterson. Otherwise, I concur.
- slang800 7y ago
  No, open source is a different term representing a different set of ideals. Here's an essay explaining the difference and the cases where open source software is not free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

throwaway2048 7y ago

The only people looking to redefine (yes, redefine, there is no supposed ongoing dispute or vagueness about what it means to be FLOSS software) are those looking to push their own agenda, its not an honest conversation and never has been.

kemitchell 7y ago
There is heaps of vagueness in both the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition, especially about copyleft. See, e.g.: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regulation.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regul... https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/14/free-to-take-freedom.html https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/14/free-to-take-freedom... There are heaps of disputes about whether licenses qualify. Check OSI's license-review list, or Twitter, or, frankly, HN.

unimpressive 7y ago

>The only thing guaranteed about "open source" software is that you can read the source. 'Open Source' was/is a rebranding of the term 'Free Software' to make it easier to sell to suits. Eric Raymond has said as much about his invention of the phrase. The idea that it's just about "being able to read the source" is wrong. It's not vague at all, you just didn't do your research. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

lliamander 7y ago
Quibble: ESR did not coin (nor did he claim to coin) open source, that honor goes to Christine Peterson. Otherwise, I concur.
slang800 7y ago
No, open source is a different term representing a different set of ideals. Here's an essay explaining the difference and the cases where open source software is not free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....