|
|
|
|
|
|
by jordigh
3930 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.