5 ms·

1. Free software doesn't imply virality. 2. Open source is defined to mean exactly what free software means, but without using the word free. The difference in

1. Free software doesn't imply virality. 2. Open source is defined to mean exactly what free software means, but without using the word free. The difference in the definitions is due to the perspective used: freedoms of the user vs restrictions the license imposes.

garmaine 5y ago
That was sloppy of me. Thank you for the correction. What I meant was that RMS advocates for “free as in [user] freedom,” whereas others wanted a word that just meant “free as in beer” unencumbered by all the other freedom-maintaining restrictions. Peterson offered “open source” and Eric Raymond ran with it.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Much of the reason the term "open source" started was to get rid of the "free beer" connotation that "free software" had. They thought companies were scared the word "free" meant they couldn't profit.
- kragen 5y ago
  This comment is also incorrect almost from beginning to end; "open source" has always required the same set of freedoms as "free software". The only correct statements in your comment are that Chris Peterson coined the phrase and that Eric Raymond took the lead in its further promotion.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    Your claim is made dubious by the fact that there exist OSI-approved open source licenses (e.g. BSD) which the FSF says do not qualify as free software licenses.
    - kragen 5y ago
      You say, "Your claim is made dubious by the fact that there exist OSI-approved open source licenses (e.g. BSD) which the FSF says do not qualify as free software licenses." But you are lying: all the BSD licenses are listed on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html as free software licenses. That page was already linked to in a reply to you 15 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pwdisswordfish8 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pwdisswordfish8 There have been some cases of disagreement in the past between the FSF and OSI, where they differed on how to interpret a license. None of these were major licenses like the BSD license; they were minor disagreements that were quickly resolved, generally by updating the license to eliminate the ambiguity that was the cause of the disagreement. Your claims are made dubious by your repeated posting of supporting claims that are easily shown to be completely false, including by material you have already been referred to in this very same thread.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        There are 2-3 disagreements that did not get resolved, but none of them are major licenses. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License Overall you're correct. The actual differences between free software and open source are trivial.
        kragen 5y ago
        Oh, thank you! I'd forgotten all about the RPL. You're right.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

garmaine 5y ago

That was sloppy of me. Thank you for the correction. What I meant was that RMS advocates for “free as in [user] freedom,” whereas others wanted a word that just meant “free as in beer” unencumbered by all the other freedom-maintaining restrictions. Peterson offered “open source” and Eric Raymond ran with it.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Much of the reason the term "open source" started was to get rid of the "free beer" connotation that "free software" had. They thought companies were scared the word "free" meant they couldn't profit.
kragen 5y ago
This comment is also incorrect almost from beginning to end; "open source" has always required the same set of freedoms as "free software". The only correct statements in your comment are that Chris Peterson coined the phrase and that Eric Raymond took the lead in its further promotion.
- garmaine 5y ago
  Your claim is made dubious by the fact that there exist OSI-approved open source licenses (e.g. BSD) which the FSF says do not qualify as free software licenses.
  - kragen 5y ago
    You say, "Your claim is made dubious by the fact that there exist OSI-approved open source licenses (e.g. BSD) which the FSF says do not qualify as free software licenses." But you are lying: all the BSD licenses are listed on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html as free software licenses. That page was already linked to in a reply to you 15 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pwdisswordfish8 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pwdisswordfish8 There have been some cases of disagreement in the past between the FSF and OSI, where they differed on how to interpret a license. None of these were major licenses like the BSD license; they were minor disagreements that were quickly resolved, generally by updating the license to eliminate the ambiguity that was the cause of the disagreement. Your claims are made dubious by your repeated posting of supporting claims that are easily shown to be completely false, including by material you have already been referred to in this very same thread.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      There are 2-3 disagreements that did not get resolved, but none of them are major licenses. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License Overall you're correct. The actual differences between free software and open source are trivial.
      - kragen 5y ago
        Oh, thank you! I'd forgotten all about the RPL. You're right.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]