3 ms·
FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom, eg. copyleft and anti-tivoization. Open source implies nearly unlimited rights f
by 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 agoWhoa, 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.