3 ms·

> Hopefully Purism can build on their recognition to funnel resources toward FOSS-mobile applications because this will help us all. What about FLOSS-mobile ap

> Hopefully Purism can build on their recognition to funnel resources toward FOSS-mobile applications because this will help us all. What about FLOSS-mobile applications?[0] - FOSS is "Free + Open-Source" - FLOSS is "FOSS + Libre" [0] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/262/what-is-the-difference-between-foss-and-floss https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/262/what-is-t...

minimalist 6y ago
I've always thought the F in FOSS was for "Free as in Freedom" not "Free as in Gratis" but yes, FLOSS was the intention here, thank you for the reminder.
- db579 6y ago
  Always thought the same. By that definition I care much more about LOSS than about FOSS or FLOSS but I don't see that used ever...
toyg 6y ago
This is just an annoying result of OSS projects squatting on FOSS, re-muddling the waters about what "Free" was supposed to mean (free as in freedom/"libre"). The original dichotomy was just OSS / FOSS. I guess the resulting division is precise (opensource you pay for / opensource and gratis / opensource and free as in freedom), I just find "floss" somewhat gross and just say Free Software.
- amosbatto 6y ago
  The "L" part was an effort to include all the speakers of Romance languages who say "software libre" or "software livre". In my experience living in South America, very few people say "código abierto" or "fuente abierto" at the Linux conferences except if they are companies presenting business plans. For most, they don't see the need for the division between "free software" and "open source", so FLOSS is a more inclusive term to cover more of the world. My personal belief is that we need the discourse of both the OSI and FSF because they appeal to different segments, and we need both the business community and people care about user rights to be in the movement if we want FOSS to succeed.

minimalist 6y ago

I've always thought the F in FOSS was for "Free as in Freedom" not "Free as in Gratis" but yes, FLOSS was the intention here, thank you for the reminder.

db579 6y ago
Always thought the same. By that definition I care much more about LOSS than about FOSS or FLOSS but I don't see that used ever...

toyg 6y ago

This is just an annoying result of OSS projects squatting on FOSS, re-muddling the waters about what "Free" was supposed to mean (free as in freedom/"libre"). The original dichotomy was just OSS / FOSS. I guess the resulting division is precise (opensource you pay for / opensource and gratis / opensource and free as in freedom), I just find "floss" somewhat gross and just say Free Software.

amosbatto 6y ago
The "L" part was an effort to include all the speakers of Romance languages who say "software libre" or "software livre". In my experience living in South America, very few people say "código abierto" or "fuente abierto" at the Linux conferences except if they are companies presenting business plans. For most, they don't see the need for the division between "free software" and "open source", so FLOSS is a more inclusive term to cover more of the world. My personal belief is that we need the discourse of both the OSI and FSF because they appeal to different segments, and we need both the business community and people care about user rights to be in the movement if we want FOSS to succeed.