4 ms·

>Pretty sad from the free software movement's perspectice. That somehow implies or suggest BSD is not free software.

by ksec 3mo ago

matheusmoreira 3mo ago
It's not a suggestion, it's a fact. BSD is permissive open source software, not copyleft free software.
- ZirconiumX 3mo ago
  > [The FreeBSD license] is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD
  - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. > However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. > The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. > By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. > This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.
    - ksec 3mo ago
      It is great that you post and quoted this. In which I suggest you reread the page yourself. It make the case very clear. There are literally 4 - 5 paragraphs on the whole thing with examples what is considered free software. Directly from RMS himself. >Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses[1]. There are many free software licenses* aside from the GNU GPL. * And in [1], >Modified BSD license (#ModifiedBSD) This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. >This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license. I actually originally asked on what you were suggesting because the idea that BSD is not Free software died a more than decade ago. That is the whole reason why Stallman wrote the page and even mentioned Rust as an example. Along with issues came up from Tivo etc. I am surprised it is now rising up again. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
      - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
        I was talking about the culture and values though. Open source is perfectly fine with proprietary software, and even encourages it. Free software most definitely isn't, and goes out of its way to prohibit it. They are not the same.
- caminanteblanco 3mo ago
  Copyleft has never been a hard requirement for free software. If anything I feel like it stands against the deeper philosophy of given no restrictions on usage to the end user. I understand that's not the RMS-take, but he's not the only voice in this community.
  - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
    Moral opposition to proprietary software is a requirement though. It's what free software is all about. It's a question of values. > he's not the only voice in this community I'd say Stallman's opinion on free software is the only one that matters. He created it. He's essentially the only person extreme enough to make serious sacrifices just to live free of proprietary software. The dystopia he warned us about inches closer to reality with every day that passes. And the fact is if you call Stallman's work "open source", you will offend him. I've seen videos of it. Because they're not the same.
    - bigstrat2003 3mo ago
      > Moral opposition to proprietary software is a requirement though. It's what free software is all about. Neither of those statements is true. Free software is about giving to others, and has never required being opposed to proprietary software.
    - jazzyjackson 3mo ago
      RMS may have coined free software as a term and legal construct via licensing but he wasn’t the first to give software away for free
      - akimbostrawman 3mo ago
        >but he wasn’t the first to give software away for free They never claimed he was and it's irrelevant because free software has nothing to do with "giving software away for free" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

>Pretty sad from the free software movement's perspectice. That somehow implies or suggest BSD is not free software.

by ksec 3mo ago

>Pretty sad from the free software movement's perspectice. That somehow implies or suggest BSD is not free software.

matheusmoreira 3mo ago

It's not a suggestion, it's a fact. BSD is permissive open source software, not copyleft free software.

ZirconiumX 3mo ago
> [The FreeBSD license] is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD
- matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. > However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. > The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. > By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. > This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.
  - ksec 3mo ago
    It is great that you post and quoted this. In which I suggest you reread the page yourself. It make the case very clear. There are literally 4 - 5 paragraphs on the whole thing with examples what is considered free software. Directly from RMS himself. >Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses[1]. There are many free software licenses* aside from the GNU GPL. * And in [1], >Modified BSD license (#ModifiedBSD) This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. >This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license. I actually originally asked on what you were suggesting because the idea that BSD is not Free software died a more than decade ago. That is the whole reason why Stallman wrote the page and even mentioned Rust as an example. Along with issues came up from Tivo etc. I am surprised it is now rising up again. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
    - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
      I was talking about the culture and values though. Open source is perfectly fine with proprietary software, and even encourages it. Free software most definitely isn't, and goes out of its way to prohibit it. They are not the same.
caminanteblanco 3mo ago
Copyleft has never been a hard requirement for free software. If anything I feel like it stands against the deeper philosophy of given no restrictions on usage to the end user. I understand that's not the RMS-take, but he's not the only voice in this community.
- matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  Moral opposition to proprietary software is a requirement though. It's what free software is all about. It's a question of values. > he's not the only voice in this community I'd say Stallman's opinion on free software is the only one that matters. He created it. He's essentially the only person extreme enough to make serious sacrifices just to live free of proprietary software. The dystopia he warned us about inches closer to reality with every day that passes. And the fact is if you call Stallman's work "open source", you will offend him. I've seen videos of it. Because they're not the same.
  - bigstrat2003 3mo ago
    > Moral opposition to proprietary software is a requirement though. It's what free software is all about. Neither of those statements is true. Free software is about giving to others, and has never required being opposed to proprietary software.
  - jazzyjackson 3mo ago
    RMS may have coined free software as a term and legal construct via licensing but he wasn’t the first to give software away for free
    - akimbostrawman 3mo ago
      >but he wasn’t the first to give software away for free They never claimed he was and it's irrelevant because free software has nothing to do with "giving software away for free" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html