3 ms·

There should be a distinction between FOSS and OSS. Nobody is trying to infringe on your FOSS rights. But some may argue the term OSS has changed to not strictl

by ezekg 3y ago

There should be a distinction between FOSS and OSS. Nobody is trying to infringe on your FOSS rights. But some may argue the term OSS has changed to not strictly mean FOSS. The term "open source" at face value only implies "source available" until you read the license. Ask 1,000 developers and I'd bet real money the majority would say projects under BSL and other non-"OSI approved" licenses are "open source." Not FOSS, but OSS.

zeeg 3y ago
In my experience most people think of open source as free plus source available. The average user doesn’t care much beyond that, which is supported by people’s willingness to add just about any dep to their software without validating licenses. No one will ever agree on terminology, but for me personally BSL is in the same category as GPL in that it achieves a bunch of the core principles, has less consequence, but also only works for certain types of software (eg sentry not libcurl).
- cxr 3y ago
  > for me personally BSL is in the same category as GPL Cool. So use the GPL, then. Previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36973417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36973417> > No one will ever agree on terminology K. And "no one" will ever agree that evolution by natural selection is responsible for the origin of species. Dang. What a pickle.