[amirouche]

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.

[derekp7]

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?

[yarrel]

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.

[ArneBab]

They can make an unfree project which pulls users and contributors from the free project, essentially killing the momentum of the free project.

[jordigh]

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.

[amirouche]

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.

[jordigh]

> it's not just a problem of software.

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.

[ArneBab]

Open source or free software is a stance.

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.