4 ms·

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 th

by 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.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>That's not what RMS writes in this document. RMS literally says "free" and "open" are quote "two different ones". The two concepts should not be conflated with the other because it inhibits properly understanding them. >"Open" alone means nothing, "Open" source code is one of the requirements for "free (gratis and/or libre)" source code, as I cited earlier. Clearly it does mean something.
- jraph 3y ago
  I don't know what to say. You are reading this wrong. He writes "free and open source" in this sentence. "source" is there right after "open". And it's not his words, he is giving the meaning of the acronym he is arguing against here... because he finds it sloppy! Software is not mentioned after "free" because it's not there in the FOSS acronym. Actually, I'm sure he would not object if it was actually repeated there as in "Free software and open source software". He does not like that software is factorized in "Free and open source software", making it look like free and open source go together. He objects precisely because "free" alone is not a thing. "Free software" is the phrase he is pushing for. He does not want people to understand the phrase as "[free and open source] software" because it misses one of the two words. The sad part is that I'm actually paraphrasing RMS, he says it better than me, he is already exceptionally clear. You can ask him, he answers mails quite consistently. Just make sure you are very clear in your questions. He will be prompt to dismiss anything sloppy. And yes, "free software" and "open source" are two different things, that's what he is pointing out and I mentioned this. > "Open" source code You are entirely ignoring my comment on how "open" and "source" cannot be separated if you are referring to the concept which the rest of the world is familiar with. Just try to find a precise definition of "open" applied to software or to source code from a recognized source. The open source definition does not count, because it has "source" right after "open". It must be "open" alone, without "source" next to it. I don't want to spoil anything but you probably won't be able to. I think I'll stop there because I will likely fail any further attempt to express myself in such a way you understand me as precisely as I would like to, and probably nobody else is reading this thread anymore anyway.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    I'm not sure we're even disagreeing at all. The following is of interest for us here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... "Open" means what it says on the tin, and the common understanding of "Open" source is along the lines of what the state of Kansas wrote down as cited in the above article: "OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code." RMS even goes on to point out that OSI's definition of "Open" source is fundamentally incompatible with English, which is among the chief reasons for any of this disagreement; quote follows: "But the term 'open source' has only one natural meaning, which is different from the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse confusion." Again, "Free" software refers to the question of how the software is licensed for use. "Open" source refers to the question of how the software's source code could be accessed by the people at large. Personally, I find the "F(L)OSS" term redundantly pointless when used in the way most people use it. Free software by its definition already requires that the software be Open source, there is no need to state "Free(/Libre) and Open" unless you want to refer to two distinct categories of software in one breath: Free/Libre software, and Open source software.

by jraph 3y ago

Dalewyn 3y ago

>That's not what RMS writes in this document. RMS literally says "free" and "open" are quote "two different ones". The two concepts should not be conflated with the other because it inhibits properly understanding them. >"Open" alone means nothing, "Open" source code is one of the requirements for "free (gratis and/or libre)" source code, as I cited earlier. Clearly it does mean something.

jraph 3y ago
I don't know what to say. You are reading this wrong. He writes "free and open source" in this sentence. "source" is there right after "open". And it's not his words, he is giving the meaning of the acronym he is arguing against here... because he finds it sloppy! Software is not mentioned after "free" because it's not there in the FOSS acronym. Actually, I'm sure he would not object if it was actually repeated there as in "Free software and open source software". He does not like that software is factorized in "Free and open source software", making it look like free and open source go together. He objects precisely because "free" alone is not a thing. "Free software" is the phrase he is pushing for. He does not want people to understand the phrase as "[free and open source] software" because it misses one of the two words. The sad part is that I'm actually paraphrasing RMS, he says it better than me, he is already exceptionally clear. You can ask him, he answers mails quite consistently. Just make sure you are very clear in your questions. He will be prompt to dismiss anything sloppy. And yes, "free software" and "open source" are two different things, that's what he is pointing out and I mentioned this. > "Open" source code You are entirely ignoring my comment on how "open" and "source" cannot be separated if you are referring to the concept which the rest of the world is familiar with. Just try to find a precise definition of "open" applied to software or to source code from a recognized source. The open source definition does not count, because it has "source" right after "open". It must be "open" alone, without "source" next to it. I don't want to spoil anything but you probably won't be able to. I think I'll stop there because I will likely fail any further attempt to express myself in such a way you understand me as precisely as I would like to, and probably nobody else is reading this thread anymore anyway.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I'm not sure we're even disagreeing at all. The following is of interest for us here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... "Open" means what it says on the tin, and the common understanding of "Open" source is along the lines of what the state of Kansas wrote down as cited in the above article: "OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code." RMS even goes on to point out that OSI's definition of "Open" source is fundamentally incompatible with English, which is among the chief reasons for any of this disagreement; quote follows: "But the term 'open source' has only one natural meaning, which is different from the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse confusion." Again, "Free" software refers to the question of how the software is licensed for use. "Open" source refers to the question of how the software's source code could be accessed by the people at large. Personally, I find the "F(L)OSS" term redundantly pointless when used in the way most people use it. Free software by its definition already requires that the software be Open source, there is no need to state "Free(/Libre) and Open" unless you want to refer to two distinct categories of software in one breath: Free/Libre software, and Open source software.