3 ms·

I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. A lot of open source licenses include a right to distribute but there usually

I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. A lot of open source licenses include a right to distribute but there usually has been a small but well known minority that does not. So I would say that if you allow your clients to view the code, change it and compile it, but prohibit distribution you still have open source.

bityard 3y ago
> I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. Oh, but it very much is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  That is a textbook example of conflating "free" and "open", the article even immediately goes on to specify "free and open" source, not just "open" source because it can't hide the fact it's conflating the two separate concepts into one. The original inspiration for all that is the Debian Free Software Guidelines[1] and The Free Software Definition[2], emphasis mine, because it concerns usage and distribution rights among others. According to those guidelines and definition, free source code must be open. However, the opposite, that open source code must be free (whether beer or libre), is never stated nor implied. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
  - jraph 3y ago
    > goes on to specify "free and open" No, it does not. It mentions "free and open-source software" (FOSS), which is a phrase in itself that cannot be split the way you did. Just go follow the link you are referring to! [1] > Free and open-source software (FOSS) is a term used to refer to groups of software consisting of both free software and open-source software Free and open are vague adjectives and it's a shame because it does not help at all, but when used in "open source" and "free software", they have a specific meaning. Gratis (non-free) software is referred to by "freeware". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      No, "free" source code and "open" source code are two different, distinct concepts[1][2]. Conflating one with the other is counterproductive and inhibits understanding of the concepts concerned. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html [2]: “Free and Open Source Software” is misleading in another way: it suggests that “free and open source” names a single point of view, rather than mentioning two different ones. This conceptualization of the field is an obstacle to understanding the fact that free software and open source are different political positions that disagree fundamentally.
      - jraph 3y ago
        That's not what RMS writes in this document. He is also not saying that FOSS and FLOSS mean different things. His goal here is to encourage people not to use the term "FOSS" because he finds "FOSS" misleading, and to use "FLOSS" instead if they want to refer to open source software, or free software, without taking sides for one or another. Apart from a few exceptions, free software and open source software are the same set of software, but the terms carry different philosophical / political values and it's sometime convenient to be able to designate this set of software without taking sides. Which he recognizes in this article, even if he is of course on the free software side. He is also not using the "free source code" and "open source code" expressions at all in this document. "free [source code]" or "open [source code]" aren't defined. They are not two different, distinct concepts in that neither of them is a clearly defined thing at all. "[Open source] code", on the contrary, is code that's open source, that is, which follows the OSD. We don't use brackets like this in English, but "open source code" is really "[open source] code". Free software is software that follows the Free software definition. "Open" alone means nothing, and free alone can mean two different, almost unrelated things when applied to software: gratis or "libre" . It therefore requires disambiguation, so I'd suggest avoiding using it at all unless very clear from the context. The phrase [free software] and [open source] can't be split. They are their own thing and that's what we have clear definition for. This is exactly why RMS argues against using FOSS by the way: > since it fails to explain that “free” refers to freedom "Free" is separated from "software" in "FOSS". Now, he was probably right to be worried about this at the time, but today I think FOSS is quite well understood the same way as FLOSS and we know that free in FOSS means libre. FOSS is not ambiguous nowadays. FLOSS might still be a better designation though for the reasons he gives. The explicit "libre" also can't hurt. Unless you are speaking about brushing your teeth with some free software, maybe avoid FLOSS for clarity.
JohnFen 3y ago
> I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. You can disagree that it should be included in the definition, but that doesn't change the fact that it specifically is included in the definition.

bityard 3y ago

> I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. Oh, but it very much is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license

Dalewyn 3y ago
That is a textbook example of conflating "free" and "open", the article even immediately goes on to specify "free and open" source, not just "open" source because it can't hide the fact it's conflating the two separate concepts into one. The original inspiration for all that is the Debian Free Software Guidelines[1] and The Free Software Definition[2], emphasis mine, because it concerns usage and distribution rights among others. According to those guidelines and definition, free source code must be open. However, the opposite, that open source code must be free (whether beer or libre), is never stated nor implied. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
- jraph 3y ago
  > goes on to specify "free and open" No, it does not. It mentions "free and open-source software" (FOSS), which is a phrase in itself that cannot be split the way you did. Just go follow the link you are referring to! [1] > Free and open-source software (FOSS) is a term used to refer to groups of software consisting of both free software and open-source software Free and open are vague adjectives and it's a shame because it does not help at all, but when used in "open source" and "free software", they have a specific meaning. Gratis (non-free) software is referred to by "freeware". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    No, "free" source code and "open" source code are two different, distinct concepts[1][2]. Conflating one with the other is counterproductive and inhibits understanding of the concepts concerned. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html [2]: “Free and Open Source Software” is misleading in another way: it suggests that “free and open source” names a single point of view, rather than mentioning two different ones. This conceptualization of the field is an obstacle to understanding the fact that free software and open source are different political positions that disagree fundamentally.
    - jraph 3y ago
      That's not what RMS writes in this document. He is also not saying that FOSS and FLOSS mean different things. His goal here is to encourage people not to use the term "FOSS" because he finds "FOSS" misleading, and to use "FLOSS" instead if they want to refer to open source software, or free software, without taking sides for one or another. Apart from a few exceptions, free software and open source software are the same set of software, but the terms carry different philosophical / political values and it's sometime convenient to be able to designate this set of software without taking sides. Which he recognizes in this article, even if he is of course on the free software side. He is also not using the "free source code" and "open source code" expressions at all in this document. "free [source code]" or "open [source code]" aren't defined. They are not two different, distinct concepts in that neither of them is a clearly defined thing at all. "[Open source] code", on the contrary, is code that's open source, that is, which follows the OSD. We don't use brackets like this in English, but "open source code" is really "[open source] code". Free software is software that follows the Free software definition. "Open" alone means nothing, and free alone can mean two different, almost unrelated things when applied to software: gratis or "libre" . It therefore requires disambiguation, so I'd suggest avoiding using it at all unless very clear from the context. The phrase [free software] and [open source] can't be split. They are their own thing and that's what we have clear definition for. This is exactly why RMS argues against using FOSS by the way: > since it fails to explain that “free” refers to freedom "Free" is separated from "software" in "FOSS". Now, he was probably right to be worried about this at the time, but today I think FOSS is quite well understood the same way as FLOSS and we know that free in FOSS means libre. FOSS is not ambiguous nowadays. FLOSS might still be a better designation though for the reasons he gives. The explicit "libre" also can't hurt. Unless you are speaking about brushing your teeth with some free software, maybe avoid FLOSS for clarity.

JohnFen 3y ago

> I don't think the right to distribute should be implied in the phrase open source. You can disagree that it should be included in the definition, but that doesn't change the fact that it specifically is included in the definition.