What is OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE?

katharsisdrill@hub.volse.no

@Tom Grzybow @Harka - Using the Firefox-logo right now was also a point of debate I anticipated (I had a (definitely friendly and constructive) comment on the Danish version). I will probably make the svg-file with the text public, så people can change things as they like.

? Offline

Yes, there is some difference between open source and FOSS. But the difference is rather small if you compare it to prorietary software. Even with OS the code is in the world and will be copied all over the globe (if it is useful). Even I use open source for my own software, although it is even FOSS. I simply don't care about this small detail.

katharsisdrill@hub.volse.no

@Rasmus Fuhse - It can be changed to FOSS - Open source is just a word that is very often used - a bit like saying Linux instead of GNU/Linux. I am definitely open for proposals

? Offline

Open Source Software != Free Software

It's not enough to be able to see the source code. How many times do we have to make this point before these "open source" people finally get the message?

? Offline

@Katharsisdrill:

the people needs heroes

Oh, Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie absolutely deserve the label of 'heroes', though they likely had no inkling whatsoever of the impact Unix would eventually have. If nothing else, visionaries and extremely bright folks.

We should not forget, under what conditions they created the first releases of Unix, like: they had a glorious 8K RAM to work with, interactions not on screens but only via line printers and all in assembly language, since C didn't even exist yet (they wrote that, too). That's like building a rocket in the stone-age!

? Offline

The BSD license is arguably more ‘free’ than the GPL, since it’s placing less restrictions on so-licensed code, though many prefer the GPL for those very extra restrictions on ideological grounds.

Precisely. Free Software is oriented more towards community sharing, and less toward corporate preference..

? Offline

Open Source Software != Free Software

"Open Source" is a Thing, Free Software is a Process.

https://medium.com/@tomgrzybow/a-new-ethos-for-free-software-23ce91677ec6

https://medium.com/@tomgrzybow/the-activist-ethos-for-free-software-b035abaf438e

? Offline

The BSD license is arguably more ‘free’ than the GPL, since it’s placing less restrictions on so-licensed code, though many prefer the GPL for those very extra restrictions on ideological grounds.

Precisely. Free Software is oriented more towards community sharing, and less toward corporate preference…

Sure about that?:

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/issues/913

https://socket.dev/blog/the-unpaid-backbone-of-open-source

I don't think it matters much, whether some code is licensed BSD or GPL. All companies care about is being able to use it freely (gratis!). Hardly any of them 'give back' in any shape, way or form, as is very apparent. Not even donations beyond token amounts to get their logo listed.

? Offline

This is not true. Most companies have a strong dislike for the GPL, and they hold some fear of the legal encumbrance.

As far as "Free" goes, the two types of licenses illustrate two different types of "Freedom". The GPL sees Freedom as a process - the process whereby the code is made more available over time and across developers. The BSD licenses see Freedom as a relatively instantaneous thing: you get it now, and that's it - the deal is done.

? Offline

Most companies have a strong dislike for the GPL, and they hold some fear of the legal encumbrance. And this is why:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation

? Offline

This is not true. Most companies have a strong dislike for the GPL, and they hold some fear of the legal encumbrance.

Perhaps when we're talking about including GPL code into a company's product code base the lawyers might be wary, I agree.

But the majority of used GPL software, from what I know, is simple programs installed on desktops or Linux distributions installed as 'servers'. The main point for doing so is the exact same as widely touted initially by FOSS advocates: 'it's free!' (as in gratis). So they use it accordingly without return contribution of any kind. And that is a huge problem for FOSS, whatever license!

? Offline

Ah, yes. But that's what it is for.

? Offline

Sure, software gets written to be used. Nothing wrong with that at all.

The problems come along with subsequent expectations. Corporate preference, as you called it, seems to enjoy taking something for free and then expecting continued free labor on part of the (hobbyist) maintainers (security and bug fixes etc.) without any direct incentive given to do so.

The articles I linked above touch on that topic.

katharsisdrill@hub.volse.no

@Tom Grzybow @Harka @David @Rasmus Fuhse - Okay. Seems I by mistake erased the page from my website. Now I just decided to rework it based on your suggestions...So:

New headline: What is FREE, OPEN SOFTWARE?

(and open source replaced with free, open software throughout)

Now... more complicated. The transition from AT&T to BSD.

"When they had invented it, it was all given away as a gift to the world. That's what free software is all about. Giving away your code so that others can read and copy it as they please."

Any suggestions on how to get closer to the historic facts with about the same character-count while keeping it simple and positive (this is sort of propaganda after all).