3 ms·
I've had the (mis?)understanding that these two were not in fact synonymous as you claim. Let's just collapse on some specifics, then? Please correct any inac
by wyldfire 4y ago
I've had the (mis?)understanding that these two were not in fact synonymous as you claim.
Let's just collapse on some specifics, then? Please correct any inaccuracies in the below:
Licenses promoted by FSF qualify as "Free/Libre software" - GPLv2, GPLv3, AGPL. These also qualify as "Open source" per OSI.
Licenses which qualify as "Open source" but not "Free": Apache, MIT, BSD-like.
- seba_dos1 4y agoAll the licenses that you mentioned qualify as both Open Source and Free Software. A license doesn't have to be viral (copyleft) in order to be free. See: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html and https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses
- wyldfire 4y agoOkay, great. So I've learned something new. But I feel like this distinction didn't come from nowhere. Did the FSF not feel the same way at some point in the past?
- seba_dos1 4y agoNot that I'm aware of. The licenses you mentioned as "free" are copyleft licenses which require modifications to retain the same license terms. The rest are usually called permissive licenses, as they don't have such requirement. Nevertheless, both kinds of licenses are and AFAIK have always been considered FLOSS and I'm not aware of any controversy around that. The distinction came basically because of political reasons. The term "Free Software" is about user freedom; the term "Open Source" has been coined so you don't have to refer to scary freedoms when presenting practical aspects of FLOSS to businesses. That's more or less the whole reason why those are separate terms, and also why FSF doesn't like the latter one.