6 ms·

Doesn't he mean FOSS, not just open source, free and open are two different things.

by ekiim 3y ago

rizky05 3y ago
[dead]
QuiDortDine 3y ago
Yes, I don't know how one can be able to cite sources yet be so ill-informed. This article probably doesn't mean anything to anyone. Open source means you get the source, that's it. OSI is a good reference, but it's not the boss of definitions.
- lucasfcosta 3y ago
  I appreciate the input, even though I don't necessarily agree. Indeed, "open source" taken at face value could be interpreted as "source available", but given the historical context, that's not what the term intends to represent. It's because of this dissonance that I think it's important to make differences clear. Perhaps "free software" has always been a better name, but I think the community needs to come to an agreement on this.
  - Denote6737 3y ago
    Free software comes with its own issues and connotations. Most people see free and think without cost. So is shareware free software?
    - commoner 3y ago
      Shareware is not free software, since it does not provide users the right to inspect or modify the software. It is also not freeware, since some or all of its features are not available free of charge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
- Flimm 3y ago
  No, open source doesn't just mean that you get the source. This is the open source definition, the only commonly used definition used in the software world: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ The first sentence says: > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: In particular, all commercial usage must be allowed, otherwise, it is not open source.
- skoob 3y ago
  The term "opensource software" was coined by the OSI founders explicitly to have the meaning they laid out in the Open Source Definition. The term didn't exist before that.
jongjong 3y ago
Interestingly, FOSS means more freedom for the code and for the end user of the code but less freedom for any developer or company who might be reproducing and/or hosting the code. The copyleft requirement of GNU licenses restrict what a developer and/or company can do with the code since it forces them to make any derived code public... Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. GPL licenses are a good way to ensnare businesses and then up-sell other software licenses that are more suited for commercial use.
- jj999 3y ago
  Except the developer of the code is not binded by the copyleft restriction. The developer can take his own code, modify it, and not release any modification. The copyleft requirement restrict what others developers can do with the code. If they don't like it... well, who are they to use the code at all?
  - jongjong 3y ago
    Yes agreed, the original developer is not bound since they still retain the copyright. I meant to say 'reproducing' the code, not 'producing'. Only the developers of derived code are restricted.
- phoenk 3y ago
  > Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. Copyleft only kicks in on redistribution. If you're only testing internally, you don't need to distribute source code. It's only once you distribute that software that you also need to distribute source.
  - erhaetherth 3y ago
    What counts as 'distribution'? If the public can connect to my server, do I have to share my server code?

Doesn't he mean FOSS, not just open source, free and open are two different things.

by ekiim 3y ago

Doesn't he mean FOSS, not just open source, free and open are two different things.

rizky05 3y ago

[dead]

QuiDortDine 3y ago

Yes, I don't know how one can be able to cite sources yet be so ill-informed. This article probably doesn't mean anything to anyone. Open source means you get the source, that's it. OSI is a good reference, but it's not the boss of definitions.

lucasfcosta 3y ago
I appreciate the input, even though I don't necessarily agree. Indeed, "open source" taken at face value could be interpreted as "source available", but given the historical context, that's not what the term intends to represent. It's because of this dissonance that I think it's important to make differences clear. Perhaps "free software" has always been a better name, but I think the community needs to come to an agreement on this.
- Denote6737 3y ago
  Free software comes with its own issues and connotations. Most people see free and think without cost. So is shareware free software?
  - commoner 3y ago
    Shareware is not free software, since it does not provide users the right to inspect or modify the software. It is also not freeware, since some or all of its features are not available free of charge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
Flimm 3y ago
No, open source doesn't just mean that you get the source. This is the open source definition, the only commonly used definition used in the software world: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ The first sentence says: > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: In particular, all commercial usage must be allowed, otherwise, it is not open source.
skoob 3y ago
The term "opensource software" was coined by the OSI founders explicitly to have the meaning they laid out in the Open Source Definition. The term didn't exist before that.

jongjong 3y ago

Interestingly, FOSS means more freedom for the code and for the end user of the code but less freedom for any developer or company who might be reproducing and/or hosting the code. The copyleft requirement of GNU licenses restrict what a developer and/or company can do with the code since it forces them to make any derived code public... Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. GPL licenses are a good way to ensnare businesses and then up-sell other software licenses that are more suited for commercial use.

jj999 3y ago
Except the developer of the code is not binded by the copyleft restriction. The developer can take his own code, modify it, and not release any modification. The copyleft requirement restrict what others developers can do with the code. If they don't like it... well, who are they to use the code at all?
- jongjong 3y ago
  Yes agreed, the original developer is not bound since they still retain the copyright. I meant to say 'reproducing' the code, not 'producing'. Only the developers of derived code are restricted.
phoenk 3y ago
> Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. Copyleft only kicks in on redistribution. If you're only testing internally, you don't need to distribute source code. It's only once you distribute that software that you also need to distribute source.
- erhaetherth 3y ago
  What counts as 'distribution'? If the public can connect to my server, do I have to share my server code?