Linked by David Adams on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 17:23 UTC, submitted by fsmag
GNU, GPL, Open Source Free Software Magazine published an interesting lexicon of terms that are thrown around within the Free Software and Creative Commons worlds that have particular meaning, and might not be familiar to people who aren't open source or free culture advocates.
Thread beginning with comment 435343
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Halo
by Halo on Wed 4th Aug 2010 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Halo"
Halo
Member since:
2009-02-10

I'm not confused at all, you just completely misunderstood what I meant.

The definition of open source is set by OSI, with open source licences typically being OSI-approved.

The definition of free software is bet by the FSF, with free software licences typically beeing FSF-approved.

If FSF pragmatically adopted the term 'open source', people would be less likely to care about licences being FSF-approved. This would reduce FSF's influence on free/open source software.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Halo
by lemur2 on Wed 4th Aug 2010 13:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Halo"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm not confused at all, you just completely misunderstood what I meant.

The definition of open source is set by OSI, with open source licences typically being OSI-approved.

The definition of free software is bet by the FSF, with free software licences typically beeing FSF-approved.

If FSF pragmatically adopted the term 'open source', people would be less likely to care about licences being FSF-approved. This would reduce FSF's influence on free/open source software.


Open source (as defined by the OSI) is off-topic for this thread. Since it lacks copy-left, open source (as defined by the OSI) has almost no guarantee of freedom.

Sure, one could write open source code, and license it under terms defined by the OSI as open source, and one could even distribute out that code to some people, and share it in a freedom-like fashion. No problem up to that point. But as soon as the code became useful, some proprietary parasite company might then appropriate it and use it in a closed product. They might then sell that closed product to yet other people, and retain the control and profit for themselves, based on the un-rewarded efforts of the original authors.

Where is there any freedom or justice in that, either for the original authors, or for the people who later paid for a closed non-free product? To add insult to injury, the latter people might even have had harsh EULA terms imposed upon them by the parasite company.

OSI open source is not freedom software. It is very important to realise that.

PS: None of your argument equates to a claim of FSF "control" over freedom software projects. I think you were confused, and are now covering your tracks. Your current argument is certainly very tenuous as to how it could be considered "control" by the FSF in any way at all.

Edited 2010-08-04 13:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Halo
by Halo on Wed 4th Aug 2010 13:42 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Halo"
Halo Member since:
2009-02-10

You are very confused. Please read the parent article or FSF's site.

You don't seem to understand that the terms "open source" and "free software" mean nearly the exact same thing. BSD/MIT, GPLv2, GPLv3 and the Apache License are all examples of "free software" (FSF-approved) and "open source" (OSI-approved) licences. 'Software freedom' is about the ability to run, study, and redistribute code.

Copyleft, however, is different. Copyleft is forcing redistributors to provide a user-modifiable copy and associated right when they redistribute. GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licences, whereas BSD and the Apache License are not.

I never said that the FSF have 'control' over 'free software' projects. They do, however, have control over the canonical meaning of the term 'free software'. If they adopted the term 'open source', they would lose that control.

Edited 2010-08-04 13:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1