Pretty sure hintjens is on (y)our side, he did after all give "free software" top billing. The "aka" part seems like an acknowledgement that in 2015 many people see the distinction as an ancient battle that perhaps doesn't need to be fought in every commentary on free software, and perhaps also a way to be more inclusive of people who don't see a distinction at all or have any trouble reconciling the terms as synonyms
The point of view of Peter Hinjens about free software licensing versus open-source, IIRC: with most open source license people can lock you out of your work via free software or proprietary licenses whereas with free software licenses your are protected against that. Also big companies devaluate what's code worth through very liberal licensing because any fork can be pulled back into their master because they have the required labor force to merge back changes, in a way or another, but you don't. So individual and small companies are better protected with free licenses. IIRC he doesn't stress the so called "philosophical" stand of free software license are.
This is something I never understood. If I put a piece of code out there under a BSD style license, how can others lock me out of my code? Yes, they can add non-free code to their copy and distribute it, but my original copy is still there. Unless they add a feature that I was also planning on adding, and they patent that feature, which would keep me from adding the same functionality to my copy of the code. But how likely is that to happen?
You can find yourself using a computer that is running code you've written but that you are not free to modify because you are either only provided with binaries or actively prevented by the software from modifying it.
See iOS for how common this is, which is to say very.
No, copyleft isn't the difference. There is no difference in the software or licenses. It's just like saying "solution" or "software". You call it a solution if you're selling it to execs but you call it software if you're selling it to hackers.
In the same vein, you call it "free software" when you're promoting it for the freedom and you call it "open source" when you're promoting it for the practicality.
Then I am a hacker selling to "execs". Software is part of the solution. If I produce something and the competition can legally use it without in a way or another to give back. It's not a good enough investment. Maximising ROI, minimizing effort reminds of algorithm complexity. Big5 have interest to choose liberal license because it's defacto political standard. They basically don't care whether it's free or open from a economical stance. They are so massive that a little improvement in the internet economy will bring back to them revenue.
> you call it software if you're selling it to hackers.
Wrong. You just don't pick up any software you look at the ecosystem: are they contributors, how many release, downloads etc.. it's not just a problem of software. Most hacker I know don't look at the code to say whether a software is good or not, but instead take the "execs" stance of looking at the ecosystem and quickly processed metrics.
I mean that "solution" is the pointy-haired boss way to say "software". The pointy-haired boss doesn't care how the problem is solved, just wants a solution. The hackers see the software itself as the fundamental thing, not some abstract buzzword "solution".
Another example: you may expand the "DRM" acronym as "digit rights management" if you think it's fundamentally about authors' rights or you expand it as "digital restrictions management" if you think it's fundamentally about user restrictions. Two different terms for the same thing.
My point here with these examples is that the only difference between "open source" and "free software" is how you're marketing the same software and the same licenses.
If you say Open Source it implies that the choice of a copyleft license is a strategy to improve your return of code, but the default is “just be open”. The goal is to get other people to support you.
If you say Free Software it implies that the choice of a lax license is a strategy to improve your spread, but the default is copyleft. The goal is Freedom. It sounds easy nowadays, since there is so much Free Software that if you have some free time you don’t feel the restrictions from proprietary software.
If you want to feel the restrictions from proprietary software again, try changing the layout of gmail and keeping it in working state for 5 years.
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not."
Open source vs free software is the opposite. Free software is about trying to claim the moral high ground, and proponents see a huge difference. Open source is about what works, and as long as it works all that silliness isn't all that relevant.
I would say that thinking they're the same means he's on the "open source" side of that, except that his "share-alike" promotional FUD is very clearly a "free software"-side argument.
Free software is about trying to claim the moral high ground, and proponents see a huge difference. Open source is about what works, and as long as it works all that silliness isn't all that relevant.
No bias here whatsoever. Nope.
Though, ironically, your justification for "open source" could just as easily be applied to proprietary software, rendering open source completely devoid of meaning.
It wasn't relevant to the article and I'd rather avoid rabbit holes. One has to pick one's fights. You can read my views on software licensing on my blog (How to Capture an Open Source Project), or book (Culture & Empire, Chapter 2).
There isn't a difference other than emphasis. It refers to the same set of software, but describes this same set of software differently. It's like saying "African American" or "black". The intended meaning is the same set of people.
Indeed, the term "open source" was coined as a marketing term for promoting free software:
No, the difference is in how the arguments are derived. Free software uses ethical arguments, whereas open source uses consequentialist claims about software quality, "many eyes catching bugs" and business value.