4 ms·

Open source doesn't imply free (or libre, if you prefer)

by joshuapants 11y ago

clarry 11y ago
It pretty much always does.
- joshuapants 11y ago
  Microsoft in particular has a history of using "shared source" licenses that are not free.
- davexunit 11y ago
  Many companies use "open source" or simply "open" in a way that isn't compatible with the open source definition. This is known as open washing. A good, non-Microsoft example is Epic Games and Unreal Tournament 4. They talk a lot about being "open", but the source code and assets are all proprietary.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - nailer 11y ago
    Neither Epic (I've contributed to UE) or Microsoft assert their products are Open Source, merely 'open'.
    - davexunit 11y ago
      And they do that explicitly to confuse people. What they do isn't open, it's smoke and mirrors.
      - nailer 11y ago
        Actually I think only MS say open. Epic says free.
micampe 11y ago
Yeah, I know, that’s my point. The distinction is the reason companies don’t like to use confusing terms: “free” has only one meaning for them in the context of software.
prezjordan 11y ago
Can you provide a counterexample?
cheald 11y ago
The OSI and FSF say otherwise. http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/faq#free-software http://opensource.org/faq#free-software > "Free software" and "open source software" are two terms for the same thing: software released under licenses that guarantee a certain, specific set of freedoms. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software” to show we do not mean it is gratis.
nailer 11y ago
Yes it does: the Open Source Definition substantially overlaps with the FSF's list of freedoms.

Open source doesn't imply free (or libre, if you prefer)

clarry 11y ago

It pretty much always does.

joshuapants 11y ago
Microsoft in particular has a history of using "shared source" licenses that are not free.
davexunit 11y ago
Many companies use "open source" or simply "open" in a way that isn't compatible with the open source definition. This is known as open washing. A good, non-Microsoft example is Epic Games and Unreal Tournament 4. They talk a lot about being "open", but the source code and assets are all proprietary.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- nailer 11y ago
  Neither Epic (I've contributed to UE) or Microsoft assert their products are Open Source, merely 'open'.
  - davexunit 11y ago
    And they do that explicitly to confuse people. What they do isn't open, it's smoke and mirrors.
    - nailer 11y ago
      Actually I think only MS say open. Epic says free.

micampe 11y ago

Yeah, I know, that’s my point. The distinction is the reason companies don’t like to use confusing terms: “free” has only one meaning for them in the context of software.

prezjordan 11y ago

Can you provide a counterexample?

cheald 11y ago

The OSI and FSF say otherwise. http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/faq#free-software http://opensource.org/faq#free-software > "Free software" and "open source software" are two terms for the same thing: software released under licenses that guarantee a certain, specific set of freedoms. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software” to show we do not mean it is gratis.

nailer 11y ago

Yes it does: the Open Source Definition substantially overlaps with the FSF's list of freedoms.