Skip to content

Comment on Why the term "open source" is importantparent

Comments

"Open source" was a service mark of OSI, an attempt to defend the term against people who use it inconsistently with its definition. I don't know if this is still the case, but OSI still advocates for use of "open source" consistent with the definition below.

Both open source and free software are defined as software that allows you to:

* use the software for any purpose

* examine the source

* distribute the software under the same license terms as you received it

* modify the software in any way

* distribute the software in modified form under the same license terms as you received the original

Stallman's quibble with "open source" is that open source messaging focuses on the business benefits of this kind of software rather than the inherent virtues of free software (and the inherent vices of non-free software). Note also that even to Stallman and the FSF, even BSD- or MIT-licensed works are "free software"; software licenses that forbid redistribution under a different license are called copyleft licenses under the FSF.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.