[bad_user]

Eh, no, Open-Source means Open-Source and I hate it when people try overloading words due to market-appeal or ignorance.

https://opensource.org/definition-annotated

I agree partly with the article about entitlement, but you need to define what "open" means, and "access to source code" doesn't cut it due to IP laws. It can't be "open" if it's a legal landmine.

And yes, Open-Source does mean "FOSS", always. The definitions of Open-Source and Free Software being very much equivalent.

Stop overloading terms for your own gain.

[cayley_graph]

Yes, agree with the rest of the article but "open source" most certainly does _not_ include "source-available". This is true regardless of which side of the permissive-vs-copyleft issue you fall on. Being obtuse about things like this dilutes the term, which I suspect is the desired outcome. To be clear, there's nothing particularly wrong with source-available programs; they simply do not rise to the level of benefits offered by open source programs.

[djur]

I'm personally not even super bent out of shape about some licensing schemes that are technically not OSD-compliant being called "open source" (i.e. ones that have targeted field-of-endeavor restrictions). There's at least a debate to be had. But what this article includes in its definition -- source code tossed over the wall that you're not allowed to do anything with -- is not anywhere close to what anybody has been calling "open source" for decades.

[gcau]

>And yes, Open-Source does mean "FOSS", always.

This does not align with reality, irregardless of what some private company says or how strongly you feel about software freedoms.

[umanwizard]

Yes it does. Here in reality, 99% of people use “open source” and “free software” to mean the same thing.

Do you have examples of any notable software describing itself as “open source” that isn’t FOSS?

[bruce511]

Free Software is a viral license. Open Source is not. So there is a difference, and I'd argue that Free <> Open Source, although they're similar.

Other than that I 100% agree either you.

[CaptainFever]

Sorry, this is not true. Free software simply means that the software grants the user 4 fundamental freedoms: the freedom to run, study, redistribute, and modify. It does not require virality, though it is encouraged.

From what I understand, Free Software and Open Source are largely similar, except that the former is political and moral, while the latter is mostly concerned about practical effects.

[umanwizard]

No, open source and free software are synonyms according to proponents of both terms, including Richard Stallman, the most prominent “free software” crusader. All (or at least virtually all) Free Software Foundation-approved licenses are also OSI-approved, and vice versa.

Your misconception is very common, but you, and other people with the same misconception, are conflating a few different things. Most of the people who prefer the term “free software” also prefer copyleft licenses to permissive licenses. Which is where the misunderstanding that “free software” means copyleft licenses and “open source” means permissive licenses comes from.

[bruce511]

Yes, I'm viewing the concept of Free Software and Open Source through the political not legal lens. Sorry for that - I should have been more careful in a thread focusing on the legal parts.

[umanwizard]

It’s not a question of what lens you’re viewing it through — your initial comment is simply wrong.

Viral licenses e.g. GPL are _both_ free software and open source. Permissive licenses e.g. BSD are also _both_ free software and open source.

[bruce511]

Legally yes. But in the political sense Free Software favors virality, whereas Open Source does not.

And again I apologize for viewing it through that lens when discussing the legal aspects, not the political aspects.

[umanwizard]

But you said:

“Free software IS a viral license”

Not “free software as a political movement tends to prefer viral licenses”.

Why is it so hard to just admit you were wrong?