4 ms·

> The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples of the distinction between "open source" and "free software." The FSF

> The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples of the distinction between "open source" and "free software." The FSF and OSI both disagree with you. The old BSD 4-clause is a FSF approved Free Software License. It is not an OSI-approved Open Source License (because of the advertising clause.) The newer 2- and 3-clause BSD licenses and the GPL are all both FSF Free Software and OSI Open Source licenses. What they do demonstrate is the distinction the FSF makes between copyleft Free Software licenses (which the GPL is), and non-copyleft Free Software licenses (which the BSD Licenses are) But Free Software and Open Source are almost identical.

inigyou 2mo ago
Open Source as a term, however, was created by corporations so they wouldn't have to touch the word "free" with a hundred-foot pole
- dragonwriter 2mo ago
  "Businesses don't want to have to spend time clarifying the libre/gratis distinction every time they use a a concise shorthand to describe licensing" is a very different claim than the upthread one that the actual terms of the BSD license and the GPL illustrate a substantive difference in meaning between the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source". But, despite being a non-sequitur, I believe your statement in correct.
trelane 2mo ago
Interesting. Citing sources (heh) would have helped here. I found more sources, and it looks like my understanding is wrong and yours is right: https://opensource.com/article/17/11/open-source-or-free-software https://opensource.com/article/17/11/open-source-or-free-sof... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to find a more accurate term for what I was trying to articulate, once I've dug into things more.

inigyou 2mo ago

Open Source as a term, however, was created by corporations so they wouldn't have to touch the word "free" with a hundred-foot pole

dragonwriter 2mo ago
"Businesses don't want to have to spend time clarifying the libre/gratis distinction every time they use a a concise shorthand to describe licensing" is a very different claim than the upthread one that the actual terms of the BSD license and the GPL illustrate a substantive difference in meaning between the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source". But, despite being a non-sequitur, I believe your statement in correct.

trelane 2mo ago

Interesting. Citing sources (heh) would have helped here. I found more sources, and it looks like my understanding is wrong and yours is right: https://opensource.com/article/17/11/open-source-or-free-software https://opensource.com/article/17/11/open-source-or-free-sof... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to find a more accurate term for what I was trying to articulate, once I've dug into things more.