3 ms·
The chart in this this article is very wrong to show only GPL as free software and MIT/Apache as open source but not free software licenses. While the FSF side
by morpheuskafka 3y ago
The chart in this this article is very wrong to show only GPL as free software and MIT/Apache as open source but not free software licenses.
While the FSF side of things doesn't like the term "open source," even they say that "nearly all open source software is free software."
Specifically, the MIT and Apache (and LGPL) licenses are absolutely free software licenses--otherwise Debian, FSF-approved distros, etc. would have far less software to choose from.
What the chart probably meant to distinguish is copyleft vs free software or open source. And if you're ordering it from a permissiveness viewpoint, the subset relationship should be reversed--GPL is far more permissive than SSPL, etc., but still less permissive that MIT/Apache.
- seba_dos1 3y agoYup. The terms "Open Source" and "Free Software" are pretty much interchangeable when it comes to licenses. The difference is political, not technical. This part of the article is pretty misleading as well: > Free software, as specified by the Free Software Foundation, is only a subset of open source software and uses very permissive licenses such as GPL and Apache.