Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jamietanna 35 days ago
I think using `open source`, and clarifying that it includes non-OSI-approved licenses could work.

Alternatively, "source available" is a term that's been used to imply the source is there, but it's not "open source" (which led to the Fair Source folks working on their own naming for it, so as some folks have negative views of "source available")
1 comments
turtleyacht 35 days ago
What has stuck with me is the phrase "free and open source," which is like, if the two were equivalent, there wouldn't be a need for the distinction.

Maybe that was when software binaries could be free but the source was not.

link
GuB-42 35 days ago
There are two big organizations: FSF (Free Software Foundation) and OSI (Open Source Initiative), and while they have similar ideas, they disagree on the details. Free software is more in line with the ideas of the FSF (more idealistic), while open source is more in line with the idea of the OSI (more pragmatic).

There is also the term "libre" (meaning "free as in freedom") to distinguish it from software that doesn't cost money.

link
cperciva 35 days ago
F/OSS is like GNU/Linux; the second part is the part which matters, but the first part keeps getting pushed by noisy people so we put up with it to keep them happy.
link
jamietanna 35 days ago
Hah, yes very true!

If you've not read up on the background between the two - I'd very much recommend it (and sorry if I'm re-explaining something you understand)

With Free Software, it's "free as in freedom", not "free as in gratis". Free Software is generally a bit more strongly biased towards the users of a piece of software, but as businesses started to use it they were a bit unhappy with that, so Open Source came to reduce that a little bit, making it easier for companies to use it, without as many strong protections for a user

See also [1]

[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

link