You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
3 points

Android is just boneless Linux, thus it’s being the most successful open source operating system. I guess the number of Android devices outnumber all the Macs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

You realize that Linux is not Open Source. The open source parts of Android are mostly of the google ones (AOSP).

FreeBSD is an Open Source OS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You realize that Linux is not Open Source.

Huh?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Putting GPL (copyleft) licences in the same bag as BSD-like (Open source and similar, permissive) licences is prejudicial for the FOSS environment.

While Open Source licencea are better than privative ones, they still do not defend the software freedom. Thus making them equivalent to GPL-like licences is misleading.

Users that do not have much knowledge about software freedom may think that Open Source projects are as free as GPL-like ones. This could mean that users end trusting this software as much as GPL-like one.

Open Source does not respect software freedom which in turn means that it also does not defend user freedom.

Putting Free software and Open Source as the same concept is dangerous. Companies prefer Open Source licences because they are able to not respect the software freedom.

If Free Software and Open Source is treated as equal, then those companies can disguise themselves as something they aren’t.

In internet different people reads what you post. Talking with property is important in order to not fool possible new users.

You could for example know the difference between both licences but someone reading you could not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Likely one of those “free software” nerds…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I feel like you’re getting pushback because your definitions. Do you think you could define, open source, free, libre?

Why does software licenced under the gpl not fall under open source? What problems do you have with the OSI’s definition open source.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It’s a way of explicitly remarking the free part. Before OSI’s definition Open Source referred to permissive licences. In most cases it still refers to permissive licences, thus the clear distinction is relevant.

Unless people starts to refer to BSD, Apache and similar as open source permissive in order to differenciate with open source copyleft (or similar).

Otherwise I feel is completely relevant to refer to copyleft software as Free Software. It helps both to show that there’s differences between both and also makes new people realize that there are different alternatives.

permalink
report
parent
reply

linuxmemes

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:
Community rules
  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

Community stats

  • 7.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 913

    Posts

  • 16K

    Comments