[2Gkashmiri]

>Castopod could one day be in that position if you don't support FOSS alternatives today. That would be the mindset to put yourself in.

they can't turn an AGPL license code into proprietary one. Open source and FOSS are similar but ideologically different beasts. One gives the downstream developer to decide the license of their work, including the ability of allowing them to turn it into proprietary code while FOSS forces all code to be foss and never proprietary

>Similar to Google abusing Chromium

chromium is under BSD while this is under AGPL. there is a world of difference between these two licenses. One allows proprietary forks while another forbids it.

[Tomte]

You have idiosyncratic definitions. BSD licenses are FOSS licenses. Open Source is a proper subset of FOSS (Free and Open Source Software).

[tpush]

> Open Source is a proper subset of FOSS (Free and Open Source Software).

Other way around.

[Tomte]

You all are confusing Free Software with FOSS.

FOSS is "Open Source" and "Free Software", where "and" means union, not intersection.

Obviously OSS cannot be a superset (more than) FOSS.

[tpush]

Huh, I always took it to mean intersection, but it does make more sense the other way around!

[_emacsomancer_]

What is an example of something which is Free but not Open Source?