5 ms·

Free implies open source. Open source does not imply free.

School-Cotton 3y ago
Name 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 ago
  Any non-copy left license is not free software.
  - School-Cotton 3y ago
    Wrong 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 ago
      FsF have been taken over by corporatists from the open source movement and is shell of it's former self
      - reidrac 3y ago
        When did that happen in your opinion? It was like this at least 20 years ago.
- palata 3y ago
  It'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 ago
    Name a license that is open source but not free software.
    - palata 3y ago
      MIT, 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 ago
        You 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
        palata 3y ago
        Right, my bad. Permissive licenses are "free" in the sense that they allow to distribute free software (e.g. I can distribute a binary together with its sources even if they are MIT-licensed, and that would be free), but they also allow to distribute non-free software (e.g. I can take MIT code and distribute a proprietary binary). Copyleft licenses enforce the freedom downstream. I guess my original point is that I don't understand why people don't like copyleft, because copyleft enforces free binaries. Does that make sense? Thanks for the correction.
        School-Cotton 3y ago
seba_dos1 3y ago
It 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)

Name 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 ago
Any non-copy left license is not free software.
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  Wrong 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 ago
    FsF have been taken over by corporatists from the open source movement and is shell of it's former self
    - reidrac 3y ago
      When did that happen in your opinion? It was like this at least 20 years ago.
palata 3y ago
It'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 ago
  Name a license that is open source but not free software.
  - palata 3y ago
    MIT, 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 ago
      You 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
      - palata 3y ago
        Right, my bad. Permissive licenses are "free" in the sense that they allow to distribute free software (e.g. I can distribute a binary together with its sources even if they are MIT-licensed, and that would be free), but they also allow to distribute non-free software (e.g. I can take MIT code and distribute a proprietary binary). Copyleft licenses enforce the freedom downstream. I guess my original point is that I don't understand why people don't like copyleft, because copyleft enforces free binaries. Does that make sense? Thanks for the correction.
        School-Cotton 3y ago

seba_dos1 3y ago

It 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)