4 ms·

> For example, open source and copyleft tend to be using different working definitions of "free" Not really. Both proponents of open source (OSI) and proponent

> For example, open source and copyleft tend to be using different working definitions of "free" Not really. Both proponents of open source (OSI) and proponents of copyleft (FSF) use mostly interchangeable definitions of 'free'. Both copyleft (GPL) and permissive (e.g. BSD licences) are considered free by both sides.

zajio1am 6y ago
Also, framing the question as 'open source vs copyleft' does not make sense, as these are really two questions 'open source vs free software' and 'permissive vs copyleft'. The first question is mainly about branding of free/open-source software, whether emphasise pragmatic aspects, or idealistic aspects (user freedom). OSI is AFAIK agnostic on 'permissive vs copyleft' question.
mumblemumble 6y ago
The key word there is "mostly." There are details that differ, though, and that is where the devil creeps in. It's not necessarily even in disagreeing about what practical things can and cannot justifiably be called freedoms. It's more in disagreeing about which ones are important to protect. Which, generally, when people talk about their freedoms, they're using the term as a shorthand for just the freedoms they think need protection. Similarly, I think that both fridge and non-fridge people generally accept both staling and getting moldy as forms of spoilage. It's just that, either as a matter of practicality or as a matter of taste, one group is more preoccupied with staling, either because mold isn't a problem where they live ,or because they are more likely to consider stale bread to be inedible, or because loaves in their house rarely last long enough to mold, anyway. The other has different priorities, and will accept staling in return for a longer time before the bread actually becomes unsafe to eat. But all these subtleties are lost, taking important subtext in the debate with them, if you focus on the broad strokes definition of the word "last" instead of really paying attention to the details.
pessimizer 6y ago
When has the OSI ever advanced a definition of "free software"?

zajio1am 6y ago

Also, framing the question as 'open source vs copyleft' does not make sense, as these are really two questions 'open source vs free software' and 'permissive vs copyleft'. The first question is mainly about branding of free/open-source software, whether emphasise pragmatic aspects, or idealistic aspects (user freedom). OSI is AFAIK agnostic on 'permissive vs copyleft' question.

mumblemumble 6y ago

The key word there is "mostly." There are details that differ, though, and that is where the devil creeps in. It's not necessarily even in disagreeing about what practical things can and cannot justifiably be called freedoms. It's more in disagreeing about which ones are important to protect. Which, generally, when people talk about their freedoms, they're using the term as a shorthand for just the freedoms they think need protection. Similarly, I think that both fridge and non-fridge people generally accept both staling and getting moldy as forms of spoilage. It's just that, either as a matter of practicality or as a matter of taste, one group is more preoccupied with staling, either because mold isn't a problem where they live ,or because they are more likely to consider stale bread to be inedible, or because loaves in their house rarely last long enough to mold, anyway. The other has different priorities, and will accept staling in return for a longer time before the bread actually becomes unsafe to eat. But all these subtleties are lost, taking important subtext in the debate with them, if you focus on the broad strokes definition of the word "last" instead of really paying attention to the details.

pessimizer 6y ago

When has the OSI ever advanced a definition of "free software"?