3 ms·

You mean you prefer permissive over copyleft. Most open source licenses are free software and vice-versa.

busterarm 7y ago
Sorry, but I don't agree. Copyleft software compels certain things. There's a history here and important points of distinction. The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Sorry, but I don't agree. You seem to agree, though. > Copyleft software compels certain things. Yes, and that's what you were complaining about and why it seems that what you really prefer is permissive licenses over Copyleft licenses. But open source software/licenses and free software/licenses are essentially identical sets (essentially all open source licenses, whether permissive or copyleft, are also free software licenses, and vice versa.) So preferring open source over free software is meaningless, they are the same thing. > The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason. For political reasons that have nothing to do with what licenses meet the definitions each organization establishes.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    I'm sorry but in the context of this "A vs B" discussion, anyone with sense knows exactly what point of distinction I'm talking about and perhaps my choice of words is because I don't want to give in to the FSF's chosen term of Copyleft but perhaps I didn't want to be completely incendiary in the discussion and call it what it is, a viral license, either. You're both just choosing to be pedantic about it. I was just trying to be nice, but I guess that's not possible. Also, from this wikipedia article here [1]: "The Free Software Foundation has related but distinct criteria for evaluating whether or not a license qualifies software as free software. Most free software licenses are also considered open-source software licenses." According to them, A does not always equal B here. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > You're both just choosing to be pedantic about it. I was just trying to be nice, but I guess that's not possible. Sorry, I had no intention of being rude; I just dislike the misconception that permissive licenses are not Free Software, because it turns people who dislike copyleft against the whole concept.
      - busterarm 7y ago
        Hey, fair enough. I get ya, even. I think the copyleft folks have gone to lengths to co-opt the term "Free Software" to mean their thing and I'm fine to let them have it. I'd like to see folks get more educated about what their license options are and the implications of using them in general.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Copyleft software compels certain things. There's a history here and important points of distinction. The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Sorry, but I don't agree. You seem to agree, though. > Copyleft software compels certain things. Yes, and that's what you were complaining about and why it seems that what you really prefer is permissive licenses over Copyleft licenses. But open source software/licenses and free software/licenses are essentially identical sets (essentially all open source licenses, whether permissive or copyleft, are also free software licenses, and vice versa.) So preferring open source over free software is meaningless, they are the same thing. > The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason. For political reasons that have nothing to do with what licenses meet the definitions each organization establishes.
- busterarm 7y ago
  I'm sorry but in the context of this "A vs B" discussion, anyone with sense knows exactly what point of distinction I'm talking about and perhaps my choice of words is because I don't want to give in to the FSF's chosen term of Copyleft but perhaps I didn't want to be completely incendiary in the discussion and call it what it is, a viral license, either. You're both just choosing to be pedantic about it. I was just trying to be nice, but I guess that's not possible. Also, from this wikipedia article here [1]: "The Free Software Foundation has related but distinct criteria for evaluating whether or not a license qualifies software as free software. Most free software licenses are also considered open-source software licenses." According to them, A does not always equal B here. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > You're both just choosing to be pedantic about it. I was just trying to be nice, but I guess that's not possible. Sorry, I had no intention of being rude; I just dislike the misconception that permissive licenses are not Free Software, because it turns people who dislike copyleft against the whole concept.
    - busterarm 7y ago
      Hey, fair enough. I get ya, even. I think the copyleft folks have gone to lengths to co-opt the term "Free Software" to mean their thing and I'm fine to let them have it. I'd like to see folks get more educated about what their license options are and the implications of using them in general.