4 ms·
No, that's free software. Open source just means that the source code is freely usable. It doesn't mean that it has a copyleft license.
by Locke1689 14y ago
No, that's free software. Open source just means that the source code is freely usable. It doesn't mean that it has a copyleft license.
- davidw 14y agoThe definitions are quite similar, actually: http://opensource.org/osd.html http://opensource.org/osd.html As you can see, it's based on Debian's guidelines. Open Source includes copyleft (GPL) licenses, but also BSD/MIT/Apache and others as well.
- Locke1689 14y agoI would consider those very different, actually. When you only allow copyleft licenses you become a social movement, whereas open source is a software development methodology. Edit: I must be way out of date, or something. I was under the impression that all Free Software had to have a requirement that derivative works also be published under a Free Software license. This doesn't seem to be true. I would agree, then, that they are basically the same.
- davidw 14y agoYes, but in practical terms, the amount of code that is one, but not the other is either small or nonexistant. The original poster thought that open source simply meant 'source code available', which I corrected. You are going off on a tangent.