5 ms·

Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. FOSS Free open source software also gives you the rights to use the source.

by L-four 7y ago

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
Thats RMS's fringe definition of OS but the widely accepted OSI definition is that open source software does not restrict your rights to commercial use.
closeparen 7y ago
FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom, eg. copyleft and anti-tivoization. Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache. With these idiosyncratic restrictions (noncommercial, research only, do no evil, etc) we typically say “disclosed source.”
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- frank2 7y ago
  >Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache. Wrong: the GPL for example is defined as open-source by the Open Source Initiative (source: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses) -- a fact that has not changed since the coining of the term "open source" over 20 years ago.
- liability 7y ago
  > FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom No it doesn't. You're thinking of copyleft licenses. FOSS is not synonymous with copyleft; many FOSS licenses (recognized as such by RMS and the FSF) are not copyleft.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    Whoa, you’re right. I definitely remember reading a tirade against permissive licenses that I thought was FSF’s position, but I see they do explicitly recognize permissive licenses as Free Software.
frank2 7y ago
>Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. No, that is "source-code available". "Open source" was defined over 20 years ago by this document and that is still how most software people still use the term: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
m463 7y ago
RMS wrote about free software and open source (which is different): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  RMS has basically single handedly tried to push "Open source can be proprietary, only free software is good" Every other orgs definition has had Open source mean the actual license is open. "Free software" is also an absolutely awful term because for 99.9% of the population "free" means it didn't cost them any money. This will never change no matter how hard RMS tries because its a very common and understood word.
  - gnomewascool 7y ago
    According to RMS, in the link posted above: > The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. and he definitely doesn't claim that open source is proprietary.

Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. FOSS Free open source software also gives you the rights to use the source.

by L-four 7y ago

Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. FOSS Free open source software also gives you the rights to use the source.

Polylactic_acid 7y ago

Thats RMS's fringe definition of OS but the widely accepted OSI definition is that open source software does not restrict your rights to commercial use.

closeparen 7y ago

FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom, eg. copyleft and anti-tivoization. Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache. With these idiosyncratic restrictions (noncommercial, research only, do no evil, etc) we typically say “disclosed source.”

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
frank2 7y ago
>Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache. Wrong: the GPL for example is defined as open-source by the Open Source Initiative (source: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses) -- a fact that has not changed since the coining of the term "open source" over 20 years ago.
liability 7y ago
> FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom No it doesn't. You're thinking of copyleft licenses. FOSS is not synonymous with copyleft; many FOSS licenses (recognized as such by RMS and the FSF) are not copyleft.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Whoa, you’re right. I definitely remember reading a tirade against permissive licenses that I thought was FSF’s position, but I see they do explicitly recognize permissive licenses as Free Software.

frank2 7y ago

>Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. No, that is "source-code available". "Open source" was defined over 20 years ago by this document and that is still how most software people still use the term: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

m463 7y ago

RMS wrote about free software and open source (which is different): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
RMS has basically single handedly tried to push "Open source can be proprietary, only free software is good" Every other orgs definition has had Open source mean the actual license is open. "Free software" is also an absolutely awful term because for 99.9% of the population "free" means it didn't cost them any money. This will never change no matter how hard RMS tries because its a very common and understood word.
- gnomewascool 7y ago
  According to RMS, in the link posted above: > The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. and he definitely doesn't claim that open source is proprietary.