4 ms·

> It's more like the notion of open source, where the source may be viewable but isn't necessarily available for redistribution. I think you misunderstand the

by thayne 7y ago

> It's more like the notion of open source, where the source may be viewable but isn't necessarily available for redistribution. I think you misunderstand the distinction between open source and free software. Open source software also needs to be available for redistribution. The main practical difference is Free Software also requires that if you make any changes to the software, those changes must _also_ be released under the same licensing, whereas open source may or may not have such provisions.

colonwqbang 7y ago
No, you are thinking of copyleft software. "Free software" means the same thing as "open-source software". See for instance this GNU page where permissive licenses like the MIT license are also described as "free software licenses": https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  It's up for interpretation. Toviozation clearly restricts freedom of modification.
  - Digit-Al 7y ago
    Really though? When the inventor of the concept of "free software" and the founder of the Free Software Foundation says that free software is not the same as open source software I don't really think you can seriously declare that "it's up for interpretation".
  - Sudarshan_SMD 7y ago
    With Tiviozation, the Software can be modified and used in any way you want, on your own hardware. It's the Hardware that is being locked by Tiviozation.
- denton-scratch 7y ago
  That is incorrect. Stallman defined 'free software'. He has said: "The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licences that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licences they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free." In particular, he notes the example of DRM software. DRM software can be distributed under an open-source licence, but by design and in practice it serves to restrict the freedoms of its users, not to enhance them.

by thayne 7y ago

colonwqbang 7y ago

No, you are thinking of copyleft software. "Free software" means the same thing as "open-source software". See for instance this GNU page where permissive licenses like the MIT license are also described as "free software licenses": https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

GoblinSlayer 7y ago
It's up for interpretation. Toviozation clearly restricts freedom of modification.
- Digit-Al 7y ago
  Really though? When the inventor of the concept of "free software" and the founder of the Free Software Foundation says that free software is not the same as open source software I don't really think you can seriously declare that "it's up for interpretation".
- Sudarshan_SMD 7y ago
  With Tiviozation, the Software can be modified and used in any way you want, on your own hardware. It's the Hardware that is being locked by Tiviozation.
denton-scratch 7y ago
That is incorrect. Stallman defined 'free software'. He has said: "The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licences that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licences they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free." In particular, he notes the example of DRM software. DRM software can be distributed under an open-source licence, but by design and in practice it serves to restrict the freedoms of its users, not to enhance them.