Conventional viewpoint?!

Posted May 30, 2016 19:46 UTC (Mon) by flussence (guest, #85566)
In reply to: Conventional viewpoint?! by Nemo_bis
Parent article: The value of drive-through contributions

> «The conventional viewpoint among open-source projects is that drive-through contributors are problematic», seriously? Most free software projects I know tend to boast about how many contributors they have […]

Maybe that's simply another point in the distinction between “open source” and true free software projects? Compare Op*nOffice and LibreOffice for example - the latter group *chooses* to be open, the former is merely *obliged* to be by the license it inherited, and the atmosphere around each one couldn't be further apart.

Conventional viewpoint?!

Posted May 31, 2016 9:21 UTC (Tue) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link] (4 responses)

I don't know, I don't make a difference between 'free software' and 'open source'. I just see the second one as a way to not have to explain the 'free as in free beer v.s. free speech' thing (not a problem in my language, the confusion doesn't exist).

For open/libreoffice, if what you're thinking of is the license, libreoffice is actually under dual apache/MPL and openoffice is (I think) only apache. Would you care to detail what you mean here?

Conventional viewpoint?!

Posted May 31, 2016 15:27 UTC (Tue) by lgeorget (guest, #99972) [Link] (1 responses)

The difference is clear for someone who wants to reuse the code.

An open source license merely gives you the right to check out and audit the code, a free software (per the definition of the FSF license allows you to use the code, modify it, redistribute it (including in its modified form), etc. : https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-poi...

Even if probably most open source software out there qualify as free (I guess), that's not quite the same thing.

Conventional viewpoint?!

Posted May 31, 2016 18:13 UTC (Tue) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]

Not at all. The only formal definition of open source (the OSI one) give exactly the same rights and guarantees (apart maybe some minor nitpicks on either side of the useless argument).
The FSF is not a good reference either, one of their license (GDFL) is not free using either definition.

Conventional viewpoint?!

Posted Jun 4, 2016 18:12 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> libreoffice is actually under dual apache/MPL

Actually, no. LibreOffice is NOT Apache, which is why LO can take advantage of OOo code, but the reverse is NOT true.

LO is dual-licence LGPL/MPL

Cheers,
Wol

Conventional viewpoint?!

Posted Jun 4, 2016 22:15 UTC (Sat) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]

Ah I though I'd read about the rebasing of Libreoffice over the ASL release of Apache OpenOffice.
I (incorrectly) assumed the work was done and finished but apparently it wasn't.
Another error I made: it wouldn't have allowed to make LO ASL as new contribution wouldn't have been included.