Richard Stallman reveals he has cancer in the GNU 40 Hacker Meeting talk

Re:Richard Stallman reveals he has cancer in the GNU 40 Hack... by palata on Friday September 29, 2023 @07:28AM (#37702137)

> Perhaps that's what we should be using: copyleft vs open source, instead of free software vs open source.

Unless I misunderstand them, what about using the actual definitions?

- Proprietary software can be closed-source or source-available

- Open-source software can be under a permissive or copyleft license

- Free software is a philosophy around open-source software, but in practice FOSS and OSS are mostly the same thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Richard Stallman reveals he has cancer in the GNU 40 Hack... by reidrac on Friday September 29, 2023 @07:37AM (#37702224)

These are good definitions but the original post wasn't referring to people not taking into account the philosophical part of free software, unless it really meant "copyleft".

A permissive licence doesn't really transmit the intent of the author, philosophy or not (it doesn't really matter, the licence is the same).

A copyleft licence, on the other hand, backs the philosophy behind free software via the actual licence.

But you are right, it should be "copyleft vs permissive open source".

[ Parent | on HN ]