3 ms·
I suspect you're conflating Free, Libre, and Open-Source Software. The first can be free (as in beer), the second free (as in you can do whatever you please wit
by 29083011397778 5y ago
I suspect you're conflating Free, Libre, and Open-Source Software. The first can be free (as in beer), the second free (as in you can do whatever you please with it), and the last is that the source is publicly available.
GP's proposition would be Open-Source, but not FLOSS IIUC
- ghaff 5y agoIn general people use the open source definition and the licenses approved by the OSI as what defines open source. These don't allow you to discriminate based on usage, such as commercial use. (If you own the copyrights, you can dual license under both an open source and a non-open source license of course.) "Source available" or "shared source" licenses are not generally considered open source.
- andrewshadura 5y agoYou are mistaken. All three terms have the same meaning.
- andrewshadura 5y agoOpen source software is a name for free software which was intended to make it sound less ideologically loaded. Libre software, on the other hand, is a name for free software intended to make it less ambiguous while preserving ideology. Anyone who claims otherwise is either: a) trying to be an ideological purist fighting with those not following their ideology to the maximum, or b) trying to mislead you to try and devalue the terms, or has been misled by (a) or (b).
- ghaff 5y agoThe impetus for the term was supposedly that people kept being confused the distinction between free as in beer and free as in freedom/libre. However, to your point, one suspects that some prominent people like Tim O'Reilly latched onto "open source" as a less ideologically-aligned term.