3 ms·
"What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.” I have zero idea what this means and I've been on Debian since Woody
by downrightmike 3y ago
"What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.”
I have zero idea what this means and I've been on Debian since Woody
- runjake 3y agoThe GNU philosophy believes Free Software[1] and Open Source are two different things[2]. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html 2. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- crandycodes 3y agoIt's possible that "Open Source" here is the OSI definition, which FSF has some objections to. If "Closed Source" just means "not Open Source as OSI defines it", then it is true that some non-OSI software is "free" software. Free software still requires source to be available and that you're allowed to modify and distribute it.
- CRConrad 3y agoThey mean that what they advocate is “free software”, not “open source”; and that what they oppose is therefore “non-free software”, not “closed source”. Honestly, how could that be hard to understand from the context of the discussion here?