Conventional viewpoint?!

Posted May 31, 2016 15:27 UTC (Tue) by lgeorget (guest, #99972)
In reply to: Conventional viewpoint?! by micka
Parent article: The value of drive-through contributions

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.