Advertisement
GStreamer Conference 2013, 22-23 Oct, Edinburgh
GStreamer, Embedded Linux, Android, VoD, Smooth Streaming, DRM, RTSP, HEVC, PulseAudio, OpenGL. Register now to attend.
| |||||||||||||
Where are the RMSs of the world?Where are the RMSs of the world?Posted Sep 30, 2013 0:22 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)In reply to: Where are the RMSs of the world? by khim Parent article: 30 years of GNU
As the article you linked clearly says, the difference between "free software" and "open source" is philosophical, not legal. Every OSI-approved licence that I know of is also FSF-approved (please point to any counterexamples). So it makes no sense to say a project 'left' free software for open source,
(Log in to post comments)
Where are the RMSs of the world? Posted Sep 30, 2013 2:01 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
It is *primarily* philosophical but there are institutional differences between OSI and FSF as well that has resulted in atleast one license approved by OSI but declared as non-free by FSF
Where are the RMSs of the world? Posted Oct 4, 2013 7:48 UTC (Fri) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]
It is (at least today) a mistake IMO to equate 'free software vs. open source' to 'FSF vs OSI'. I am seeing that quite a bit in various contexts.
Regarding the differential between FSF-free and OSI-approved, the examples I'm aware of involved licenses that were approved by the OSI but considered nonfree by the FSF. It is possible that those OSI-approved licenses, if reviewed by the OSI today, would not be judged consistent with the Open Source Definition. I believe history may explain this difference: at a certain moment in the past, the OSI seemed eager to approve certain licenses then being manufactured by the business world, while the FSF was eager to demonstrate its willingess to reject such licenses on articulated principle. I suppose that may be what you mean by 'institutional differences', but I would just emphasize the historical element. The two organizations were, to some degree, in competition with one another in that time period (I would not say they are today).
Disclaimer: FSF is a former client and I am currently an OSI board member, but I am just speaking for myself here.
free software and open source Posted Sep 30, 2013 7:53 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
The differences in licences is trivial. IIRC there was one licence approved by FSF and rejected by OSI, and two approved by OSI but not FSF, but none of those licences had widespread use, so that can generally be ignored.
The bigger difference is that software on a locked, tivoised, or DRM-using device cannot be considered free software, but it can still be open source. Free software is about users really having freedom. Open source is about the developers favouring one development model over another.
|
|||||||||||||