3 ms·

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

by 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

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.