3 ms·

Open Source is not the same as Free Software and does not say much about the license other than that the source can be viewed. At least that is my understanding

Open Source is not the same as Free Software and does not say much about the license other than that the source can be viewed. At least that is my understanding.

joshmanders 6y ago
Your understanding is correct. Open source means nothing more than you can view the source. It's just typically open source software also comes with a license that allows you to use it free, either with MIT or similar. OSS !== FOSS
- billyjobob 6y ago
  You are thinking of Source-Available Software[1], not Open Source. The sets of Open Source and Free Software licenses are (almost) identical. OSS == FOSS == FLOSS == FS, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
  - joshmanders 6y ago
    OSS, FOSS and FLOSS are not the same at all.
- hda2 6y ago
  Your understanding is not correct. Open source does not only mean than you can view the source. If you're not familiar with the term, look it up. Don't make things up.
  - joshmanders 6y ago
    You should talk to RMS and ask his opinion then.
- bblough 6y ago
  I responded to this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886508
billyjobob 6y ago
Your understanding is incorrect. Open Source is an alternative term for Free Software[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof...
- 533474 6y ago
  His understanding was correct. Open source is not the same [1]. It might be an alternative but it is not the same as free software. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - hda2 6y ago
    Open source was coined by the guys at mozilla to avoid the ambiguity people are trying to create. Open source has a clear and well-defined meaning and it's not defined by whether the source is viewable.
bblough 6y ago
I responded to this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886508

Open Source is not the same as Free Software and does not say much about the license other than that the source can be viewed. At least that is my understanding.

joshmanders 6y ago

Your understanding is correct. Open source means nothing more than you can view the source. It's just typically open source software also comes with a license that allows you to use it free, either with MIT or similar. OSS !== FOSS

billyjobob 6y ago
You are thinking of Source-Available Software[1], not Open Source. The sets of Open Source and Free Software licenses are (almost) identical. OSS == FOSS == FLOSS == FS, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
- joshmanders 6y ago
  OSS, FOSS and FLOSS are not the same at all.
hda2 6y ago
Your understanding is not correct. Open source does not only mean than you can view the source. If you're not familiar with the term, look it up. Don't make things up.
- joshmanders 6y ago
  You should talk to RMS and ask his opinion then.
bblough 6y ago
I responded to this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886508

billyjobob 6y ago

Your understanding is incorrect. Open Source is an alternative term for Free Software[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof...

533474 6y ago
His understanding was correct. Open source is not the same [1]. It might be an alternative but it is not the same as free software. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- hda2 6y ago
  Open source was coined by the guys at mozilla to avoid the ambiguity people are trying to create. Open source has a clear and well-defined meaning and it's not defined by whether the source is viewable.

bblough 6y ago

I responded to this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886508