What’s up with these new not-open source licenses?

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by m463 on Thursday March 18, 2021 @06:23PM (#26508153)

from "Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing"

“Open”

Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a substitute for “free software.” Those terms refer to a different set of views[1] based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for your freedom in your computing, as a matter of justice. The open source non-movement does not campaign for anything in this way.

When referring to the open source views, it's correct to use that name, but please do not use that term when talking about us, our software, or our views—that leads people to suppose our views are similar to theirs.

Instead of open source, we say, free software or free (libre) software.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

[1] "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software"

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by wizzwizz4 on Thursday March 18, 2021 @06:26PM (#26508188)

I don't see how this is relevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by _carbyau_ on Friday March 19, 2021 @12:21AM (#26510132)

So many comments in this thread seem to conflate Open Source definition with the original Free Software definition.

The companies who have restrictions on how their Open Source software can be used can technically be Open Source (depending on your definition) while failing to be Free Software.

The two links clarify that originally at least, they were not the same thing.

This has been going on for a long time and hence as with many language phrases the use/connotation/definition may change over time.

And so we have a HN comment fest over "What Really Is The Definition of Open Source?".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by dragonwriter on Friday March 19, 2021 @07:48PM (#26519305)

> So many comments in this thread seem to conflate Open Source definition with the original Free Software definition.

The Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition are virtually identical in application. Other than CC0 being withdrawn from OSI consideration (not denied) and accepted as a Free Software license, I can't think of any differences in practice.

The Open Source community and the Frr Software community have differing ideologies, but nearly identical minimum requirements for software licensing to meet those different visions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by _carbyau_ on Sunday March 21, 2021 @08:41PM (#26535525)

Well, Open Source is a superset of Free Software. So it gets all the credit for what is actually Free Software.

Now as per my original point. This has been going on a long time, and as with language the definitions can change over time.

Early on they were different. Open Source basically implying "hey you can read the Source!" but not necessarily giving you any other freedoms to actually USE it.

But today, people are saying Open Source and Free Software are much the same thing.

I am all for them being the same thing. IE I am happy with Open Source in all practical ways having the same freedoms as Free Software.

But now we gotta call out those projects which define themselves as "Open Source" for marketing use of the goodwill around nice modern definition while operating under the old definition.

Edit: for clarification

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by wizzwizz4 on Friday March 19, 2021 @03:36PM (#26517429)

I see. I thought you were linking to them because you were also conflating the two.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by _carbyau_ on Sunday March 21, 2021 @08:23PM (#26535425)

I can't take credit for posting those links. They were good though.

[ Parent | on HN ]