Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Tangurena 5164 days ago
The religious war of "free" versus "open" is what turns a lot of people off.

Previously, when posting code I wrote, I'd pick MIT license which would allow users to do what they wanted. Picking GPL would mean that many potential users would be prohibited by company policy from using it.
1 comments
billpatrianakos 5164 days ago
Exactly. I'm one of those who honestly doesn't mind if anyone comes along, forks, closes the source, and makes a million off my code. I think it's a lot about money. There's also this rejection of the FOSS ideals. The GPL puts a lot of people off because it can be perceived as being more about ego and anti-profit rather than true freedom. For me personally, I prefer open source to free because I'm against restricting anyone's usage of my code and don't mind if they don't contribute back.

I think people's intentions have changed too. It was once all about paying things forward and now the importance seems to be placed on simply sharing with no regard to how the code is used or by whom.

link
icebraining 5164 days ago
I prefer open source to free

The approaches are different, but in terms of licenses and rights, Open Source and Free Software are mostly the same. MIT and BSD are Free Software too.

link
billpatrianakos 5164 days ago
Really? I mean, I know they're very close but correct me if I'm wrong here:

First, let me be clear that I'm talking about Free in terms of how the GPL codifies it.

So Free software a la the GPL always begets more free software. Open source on the other hand is free but you can close that source up and make a nice profit without contributing back. I'm for the latter and that's the distinction I was getting at. I know all the licenses have their nuances but generally speaking free GPL style licenses forbid not contributing back whereas open source generally let's people do as they please as far as contributing your changes go.

link
icebraining 5164 days ago
Free Software, as defined by the FSF, includes both copyleft like the GPL and permissive licenses like BSD. Open Source, as defined by the OSI, does the same.

Essentially, it's Free Software any license that provides the following four freedoms:

    The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so
                             it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
    The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).
Copyleft (like the GPL has) is a way to ensure that the four freedoms are transfered to any derivative work, but:

    A free license may also permit other ways of releasing them;
    in other words, it does not have to be a copyleft license.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
link