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 435354
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Halo
by Halo on Wed 4th Aug 2010 13:42 UTC 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

RE[5]: Comment by Halo
by lemur2 on Wed 4th Aug 2010 13:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Halo"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


In and of itself, this is correct.

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


And this is a vital, critical difference that you seem to vastly under-rate, or misunderstand completely. Copyleft is the essence of the difference between mere "open source" and true "freedom software".

That difference is an enormous gulf, really. It is the reason why copyleft licenses are many times more popular than mere open source licenses.

I never said that the FSF have 'control' over free software projects. I say they have control over the the canonical meaning of term 'free software', a definition they have changed at least once in recent years.


Revisionism. This imaginary "control" is a meaning you have changed at least once in this very thread.

Scratch that ... I have reconsidered ... here is your quote:

"The FSF adopting 'open source' would be simplest, since the ideological difference between 'open source' and 'free software' is in practice incredibly small, and it would allow the FSF to put its emphasis on 'copyleft'. Still, they find it objectionable due to its lack of emphasis on freedom and, although they probably wouldn't admit it, FSF control."

On re-reading, you probably were talking about control of the terminology rather than control of the software.

Mea culpa then.

PS: I still however strongly disagree with your notion that there is only a small difference between open source and freedom software.

Edited 2010-08-04 13:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3