[an_d_rew]

I have worked at multiple companies that vilified open source anything, while building their entire businesses on Linux, Java, Debian, and thousands of other "OSI Approved" software.

It's because, in my experience, the majority of businesses want to take but do not want to feel any obligation to give back or support.

[Aeolun]

Most businesses are started to earn money. Using free stuff while not giving anything away seems perfectly in line with those goals.

[LtWorf]

> Most businesses are started to earn money.

I thought tech startups were started to con people into thinking they might earn money.

[pessimizer]

Which was the entire purpose of Open Source, from conception, and the only way it is distinct from other licenses. Open Source is like Free Software, except you can use it without giving anything away.

[dragonwriter]

> Open Source is like Free Software, except you can use it without giving anything away.

No, Open Source and Free Software are two names for essentially the same thing. The Free Software Foundation has a preference for licenses which go beyond its own Free Software Definition [0] and which are also "Copyleft" [1], but does not define Free Software in a way which requires that it also be Copyleft.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

[pessimizer]

> No, Open Source and Free Software are two names for essentially the same thing.

This is not substantially true, which is why I assume you've added "essentially" in here. Open Source is Free Software, because anybody can take it and make it anything they want as long as they comply with the minimal license terms. Open Source can be proprietary, too, if somebody takes it, complies with the minimal license terms, and makes it proprietary.

[dragonwriter]

> This is not substantially true, which is why I assume you've added "essentially" in here.

No, it is. The OSI Open Source definition and the FSF Free Software definition are framed differently but require substantially the same things, and for virtually every license on which both have expressed an opinion, they have cone to the same conclusion as to whether it meets each organization’s requirements.

Free Software does not require a license that prevents proprietary re-licensing, that is an additional separate concern beyond the Free Software definition (Copyleft); the FSF generally prefers copyleft licenses, but recognizes non-copyleft licenses as Free Software licenses.

You seem to under the mistaken impression that copyleft is a requirement to meet the Free Software definition, but that has never been the case.

[goku12]

To be clear, Open Source and Free Software aren't licenses. They are philosophies. FOSS licenses come in two major varieties - copyleft (like GPL) and permissive (like MIT). It's possible for either type of license to conform to both open source and free software philosophies. In fact, the vast majority of FOSS licenses - both copyleft and permissive - are endorsed by both camps (OSI and FSF). Also, both camps reject licenses for similar reasons - like for having proprietary terms (as in case of BSL).

The property of being able to keep changes to oneself is the property of permissive licenses, not opensource. Open source software under copyleft licenses cannot be modified and distributed while withholding changes. The inverse is applicable to FS under permissive license too.

The real difference between free software and open source is in how they treat the software. FS camp considers software as something that should give the users total freedom over the computing devices they own. The software shouldn't constrain or exploit the end user in any manner. This of course needs the source to be open.

OSS camp established open source because they realized the advantages of 'open' source, but didn't like the emphasis on freedom. That's more in line with corporate philosophy - take advantage of unaffiliated talent to increase code volume and quality, without making any commitment to user freedom. This is why many companies completely avoid the term free software. It's also easy to find 'open source' code that's very exploitative towards users, despite being open and using FSF-endorsed licenses.