6 ms·
>>Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, No ... no they are not >>despite the philosophical differences. And those differences are HUGE and
by phpisthebest 3y ago
>>Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same,
No ... no they are not
>>despite the philosophical differences.
And those differences are HUGE and make them incompatible
- reidrac 3y agoWell, go and check: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Then see how many of those are OSI approved licences (thus open source).
- rout39574 3y agoYes, anything the FSF blesses also qualifies as open source. Can you articulate what point you're trying to make, that this supports?
- School-Cotton 3y agoThe inverse is also true (barring possibly some insignificant exceptions). Can you name any mainstream open source license that is not considered free software?
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoFree implies open source. Open source does not imply free.
- School-Cotton 3y agoName an open source license that you don’t consider free software, then. Note that “source available” (Business Software License, etc.) is not the same thing as “open source”.
- phpisthebest 3y agoAny non-copy left license is not free software.
- School-Cotton 3y agoWrong according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD
- phpisthebest 3y agoFsF have been taken over by corporatists from the open source movement and is shell of it's former self
- reidrac 3y agoWhen did that happen in your opinion? It was like this at least 20 years ago.
- palata 3y agoIt's not about what you consider or not. The Free Software movement is very clear. It is about the freedom of the user: "I, the copyright owner of my own code, allow you to use my code as long as you let your users have (some kind of) access to my code in the product they buy". Really as an end user, I just don't understand who would be against the Free Software philosophy: either you don't care, or you want as much control as you can on what you buy, but why would you ever say: "I don't want those weird licenses that give me more access to the stuff I buy, I want the other ones that make it completely proprietary and inaccessible". Of course as a company, you want permissive licenses, such that you can use it for free, but keep it proprietary (because companies like to think that this one bugfix they made is very strategic IP).
- School-Cotton 3y agoName a license that is open source but not free software.
- palata 3y agoMIT, BSD, Apache, anything that is open source but allows you to make the code proprietary. > When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- School-Cotton 3y agoYou are wrong according to the FSF. They consider all the licenses you mentioned to be free software licenses. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD
- seba_dos1 3y agoIt absolutely does. The difference between these two movements is purely philosophical; practically they describe the same things, they just do it in a different way and for different reasons. (that doesn't mean the difference isn't important though)
- ilyt 3y agoYes, not making it ridiculously easy for corporate to make money off someone's else work without giving anything back is a huge difference. I don't really get why people are for non-copyleft licenses. LGPL is fine license.
- School-Cotton 3y ago> no they are not Yes they are, according to people who use both terms. All “free software” licenses are also “open source” licenses and vice versa.
- palata 3y agoFree Software is Open Source, but Open Source is not necessarily Free Software.
- seba_dos1 3y agoYou're wrong and probably mistaking these terms with copyleft and permissive licenses. Both of these kinds of licenses are both Free Software and Open Source. In practice, pretty much every Open Source license is also Free Software license and vice versa (there are some very nitpicky exceptions, but I guarantee they're not where you'd expect them to be).