4 ms·

> we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes Wit

> we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes With open source but not "free" (sensu Stallman) software, one is free to run it and study it and change it, right? Since one has read permissions on the code. So the only difference is in distribution rights? So his sentence is misleading regarding the extent of the differences?

olalonde 7y ago
> So the only difference is in distribution rights? So his sentence is misleading regarding the extent of the differences? Yes, it's misleading. There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licensing. What this boils down to is that not all open source developers subscribe to the free software philosophy (e.g. believe that proprietary software is evil). Therefore, rms doesn't like the term.
- Myrmornis 7y ago
  > There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licensing. Isn't it the case that (a) there could be / are open source projects with extremely restrictive licensing which totally prevents all distribution. I.e. a "copyright": you can still read and run the software and modify it for yourself, as long as you don't distribute it, and (b) such a project could never be "free" sensu Stallman?
  - olalonde 7y ago
    No, licensing that prevents distribution would disqualify it as "open source" software.
orangeshark 7y ago
Free software and open source software cover basically the same software. The main difference is that these communities value different parts of the software. Free Software supporters value the freedom aspects of the software, while Open Source Software supporters value the development practices to create powerful and reliable software. If you listen to these supporters on the benefits of releasing your software as Free and Open Source, you will hear completely different reasons why.

olalonde 7y ago

> So the only difference is in distribution rights? So his sentence is misleading regarding the extent of the differences? Yes, it's misleading. There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licensing. What this boils down to is that not all open source developers subscribe to the free software philosophy (e.g. believe that proprietary software is evil). Therefore, rms doesn't like the term.

Myrmornis 7y ago
> There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licensing. Isn't it the case that (a) there could be / are open source projects with extremely restrictive licensing which totally prevents all distribution. I.e. a "copyright": you can still read and run the software and modify it for yourself, as long as you don't distribute it, and (b) such a project could never be "free" sensu Stallman?
- olalonde 7y ago
  No, licensing that prevents distribution would disqualify it as "open source" software.

orangeshark 7y ago

Free software and open source software cover basically the same software. The main difference is that these communities value different parts of the software. Free Software supporters value the freedom aspects of the software, while Open Source Software supporters value the development practices to create powerful and reliable software. If you listen to these supporters on the benefits of releasing your software as Free and Open Source, you will hear completely different reasons why.