11 ms·

It's open source, not free software.

by maldonad0 1y ago

retired_account 1y ago
The license says otherwise; hard to get freer than public domain.
- tripplyons 1y ago
  Open source is a more informative term for this than free software. Not all free software is open source, but all open source software is free. Edit: I was not aware of the FSF's definition. I was using a definition of free software being software that you can use without having to pay for it.
  - manbash 1y ago
    > Not all free software is open sourc Depends on which "free software" definition you're referring to. The FSF definition of "free software" requires it to be open source.
    - tripplyons 1y ago
      I have clarified which definition I used.
  - F3nd0 1y ago
    I think you are mistaken; neither is a subset of the other. At the very least, there are licences which are recognised as open source by the OSI, but not as free by the FSF, and vice versa [1]. I think it’s more appropriate to say they are two fundamentally separate definitions with a massive overlap. [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/ https://spdx.org/licenses/
    - tripplyons 1y ago
      Thank you for the information! I was not aware of the FSF's definition.
  - xigoi 1y ago
    > Edit: I was not aware of the FSF's definition. I was using a definition of free software being software that you can use without having to pay for it. That’s called freeware. Also, open-source software can be paid (with the caveat that if someone buys it, you must allow them to redistribute it for free).
  - TZubiri 1y ago
    You have recited a successful incantation to summon the Stallman acolytes. To add an additional suggestion, gratis can also be used to refer to free as in free beer. Comes from a latin root and is common in spanish speaking countries to refer only to free of charge, and not as in freedom.
- SoKamil 1y ago
  What is the stance of Your Average Corp’s security department on public domain software? Do they accept software under such licensing (or lack thereof)?
  - jen20 1y ago
    Who cares? Seriously. Whether a commercial entity who wants to be able to benefit from your work accepts the license you choose for work you do is as much a concern as whether or not the prime minister of Liechtenstein accepts the color you paint the outside of your house in the USA. That is: none.
    - _puk 1y ago
      Bad analogy.. if they truly care what colour your house is then there's plenty of strings they could pull. I mean, a good number of large U.S. company's tax and corporate structures depend heavily on Liechtenstein's government’s rules..
      - jen20 1y ago
        Some people have standing for better or mostly worse - HOAs and local councils. The government of Liechtenstein does not.
    - rerdavies 1y ago
      Kinda depends on whether you're publishing open source software so that people can use it. And if you're not publishing open source software so that people can use it, why exactly are you doing it? If you don't want people to use it, GPL is the way to go. If you do want people to use it, MIT or BSD is a much better way to go.
      - jen20 1y ago
        Linux, Git and the entire GNU system are counterexamples. Meanwhile FreeBSD dies by the day. People != the legal departments of corporations.
      - 1y ago
- captbaritone 1y ago
  I recall hearing that SQLite actually had some significant issues with choosing public domain as their license and somewhat regret the decision. Apparently it’s not a concept which has broad understating internationally, and there’s less legal precedent in a software context which has made it harder for some teams to adopt due to concerns from legal departments.
  - shiomiru 1y ago
    The Unlicense isn't "just" public domain though, it also has a fallback clause that explicitly lists things you are allowed to do ("copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute"). So I think the intent is, even if PD isn't recognized and line 1 is invalid, you're still granting a license to the same effect. SQLite on the other hand just says The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing: May you do good and not evil. May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others. May you share freely, never taking more than you give. which seems less useful once you strike sentence 1.
lioeters 1y ago
Aside from the posted library sj.h which is in public domain (compatible with the definition of "free software"), the author's other projects mostly use the MIT license. The MIT license upholds the four essential freedoms of free software: the right to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. It is listed under "Expat License" in the list of GPL-compatible Free Software licenses. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
F3nd0 1y ago
‘Free software’ and ‘open source software’ (as respectively defined by the FSF [1] and the OSI [2], which is how they’re usually used in practice) have overlapping definitions. The project in question is released into the public domain via the Unlicense, which qualifies as a free software ‘licence’. Many of the other projects use the MIT/Expat licence, which also qualifies as a free software licence. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [2] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- typpilol 1y ago
  I also use Unlicense. It's literally the most permissive license you can have lol
  - HighGoldstein 1y ago
    The caveat with the Unlicense is that it doesn't work in some jurisdictions, and the work may be considered literally unlicensed, as in nobody except the copyright owner can use it. In practical terms, of course, I doubt anyone using the Unlicense plans to come after you for copyright infringement, but it's something to keep in mind. This is why many organizations recommend instead using something like CC0, MIT etc.
- rerdavies 1y ago
  And how exactly does it not qualify as an open source license? Seems to meet the definition as far as I can see.
  - Cogito 1y ago
    No claim was made that it is not open source. The contention was over if it was a free license or not: > not free software which it is. As F3nd0 said, it's both.
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  If anyone is curious on FSF's comments about various licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
ramses0 1y ago
"Source Available" and "Open Source" (with an OSI-approved license) are the terms you're looking for. "Free as in speech, or free as in beer?" is your rallying cry.
- rerdavies 1y ago
  Or Free as in Ebola, in the case of GPL-licensed software. Whatever happened to Free as in Air and Sunshine?
  - a96 1y ago
    It was enshittified because there was nothing defending it.
    - rerdavies 1y ago
      From what? It's pretty difficult to enshittify something that has an MIT license; whereas there seem to be practically infinite ways to enshittify GPL software.

It's open source, not free software.

retired_account 1y ago

The license says otherwise; hard to get freer than public domain.

tripplyons 1y ago
Open source is a more informative term for this than free software. Not all free software is open source, but all open source software is free. Edit: I was not aware of the FSF's definition. I was using a definition of free software being software that you can use without having to pay for it.
- manbash 1y ago
  > Not all free software is open sourc Depends on which "free software" definition you're referring to. The FSF definition of "free software" requires it to be open source.
  - tripplyons 1y ago
    I have clarified which definition I used.
- F3nd0 1y ago
  I think you are mistaken; neither is a subset of the other. At the very least, there are licences which are recognised as open source by the OSI, but not as free by the FSF, and vice versa [1]. I think it’s more appropriate to say they are two fundamentally separate definitions with a massive overlap. [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/ https://spdx.org/licenses/
  - tripplyons 1y ago
    Thank you for the information! I was not aware of the FSF's definition.
- xigoi 1y ago
  > Edit: I was not aware of the FSF's definition. I was using a definition of free software being software that you can use without having to pay for it. That’s called freeware. Also, open-source software can be paid (with the caveat that if someone buys it, you must allow them to redistribute it for free).
- TZubiri 1y ago
  You have recited a successful incantation to summon the Stallman acolytes. To add an additional suggestion, gratis can also be used to refer to free as in free beer. Comes from a latin root and is common in spanish speaking countries to refer only to free of charge, and not as in freedom.
SoKamil 1y ago
What is the stance of Your Average Corp’s security department on public domain software? Do they accept software under such licensing (or lack thereof)?
- jen20 1y ago
  Who cares? Seriously. Whether a commercial entity who wants to be able to benefit from your work accepts the license you choose for work you do is as much a concern as whether or not the prime minister of Liechtenstein accepts the color you paint the outside of your house in the USA. That is: none.
  - _puk 1y ago
    Bad analogy.. if they truly care what colour your house is then there's plenty of strings they could pull. I mean, a good number of large U.S. company's tax and corporate structures depend heavily on Liechtenstein's government’s rules..
    - jen20 1y ago
      Some people have standing for better or mostly worse - HOAs and local councils. The government of Liechtenstein does not.
  - rerdavies 1y ago
    Kinda depends on whether you're publishing open source software so that people can use it. And if you're not publishing open source software so that people can use it, why exactly are you doing it? If you don't want people to use it, GPL is the way to go. If you do want people to use it, MIT or BSD is a much better way to go.
    - jen20 1y ago
      Linux, Git and the entire GNU system are counterexamples. Meanwhile FreeBSD dies by the day. People != the legal departments of corporations.
    - 1y ago
captbaritone 1y ago
I recall hearing that SQLite actually had some significant issues with choosing public domain as their license and somewhat regret the decision. Apparently it’s not a concept which has broad understating internationally, and there’s less legal precedent in a software context which has made it harder for some teams to adopt due to concerns from legal departments.
- shiomiru 1y ago
  The Unlicense isn't "just" public domain though, it also has a fallback clause that explicitly lists things you are allowed to do ("copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute"). So I think the intent is, even if PD isn't recognized and line 1 is invalid, you're still granting a license to the same effect. SQLite on the other hand just says The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing: May you do good and not evil. May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others. May you share freely, never taking more than you give. which seems less useful once you strike sentence 1.

lioeters 1y ago

Aside from the posted library sj.h which is in public domain (compatible with the definition of "free software"), the author's other projects mostly use the MIT license. The MIT license upholds the four essential freedoms of free software: the right to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. It is listed under "Expat License" in the list of GPL-compatible Free Software licenses. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

F3nd0 1y ago

‘Free software’ and ‘open source software’ (as respectively defined by the FSF [1] and the OSI [2], which is how they’re usually used in practice) have overlapping definitions. The project in question is released into the public domain via the Unlicense, which qualifies as a free software ‘licence’. Many of the other projects use the MIT/Expat licence, which also qualifies as a free software licence. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [2] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

typpilol 1y ago
I also use Unlicense. It's literally the most permissive license you can have lol
- HighGoldstein 1y ago
  The caveat with the Unlicense is that it doesn't work in some jurisdictions, and the work may be considered literally unlicensed, as in nobody except the copyright owner can use it. In practical terms, of course, I doubt anyone using the Unlicense plans to come after you for copyright infringement, but it's something to keep in mind. This is why many organizations recommend instead using something like CC0, MIT etc.
rerdavies 1y ago
And how exactly does it not qualify as an open source license? Seems to meet the definition as far as I can see.
- Cogito 1y ago
  No claim was made that it is not open source. The contention was over if it was a free license or not: > not free software which it is. As F3nd0 said, it's both.
satvikpendem 1y ago
If anyone is curious on FSF's comments about various licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

ramses0 1y ago

"Source Available" and "Open Source" (with an OSI-approved license) are the terms you're looking for. "Free as in speech, or free as in beer?" is your rallying cry.

rerdavies 1y ago
Or Free as in Ebola, in the case of GPL-licensed software. Whatever happened to Free as in Air and Sunshine?
- a96 1y ago
  It was enshittified because there was nothing defending it.
  - rerdavies 1y ago
    From what? It's pretty difficult to enshittify something that has an MIT license; whereas there seem to be practically infinite ways to enshittify GPL software.