2 ms·
> 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 pra
by 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 agoNo, licensing that prevents distribution would disqualify it as "open source" software.