Both free software and open source are strictly defined terms. Most F/OSS licenses are applicable to both, but there are licenses that are only open source, but but free software and vice-versa.
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
15 points (77.8% liked)
Technology
67050 readers
4525 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Things like the MS-PL strike me as Open Source but not Free Software, but I can't think of a contrary example which is Free Software but not Open Source.
I read a Stack Overflow discussion about it a few years ago and if I remember correctly, they found some obscure one which was free but not open source.
Though I don't remember which one it was.
Freedom is such a vague word, we shouldn’t use this word if we want to be precise about what we mean by it.
I cannot more strongly disagree as it's very explicitly defined. Libre software is not the same as open source software even though the non-initiated equate the two.
However, I do not think we should use the term open source.
This is why most people use the term FOSS now; free and open source software. Then of course there's Libre.
I think they meant Freedom is vague in the general sense, outside a software development context.
It doesn't matter what you think. These terms have been standardised and in use for decades.
I do not think we should use the term open source
That really depends on what you're trying to convey.
"Open source" is all about the code, and it usually implies that it can be used for any purpose, commercial or otherwise. When I think of open source, I think of MIT, BSD, and other permissive licenses where the point is to ensure the source can be used for any purpose.
"Free software" is all about the users, and it comes with extra baggage that ensures that users will always have access to improvements by others. If it's used in a commercial project, you can demand the improvements be made available under the same terms as the library it's based on. When I think of free software, I think of copyleft licenses like GPL, AGPL, etc.
Both are valid, and generally all free software is open source but not all open source software is free software. Both are worthwhile terms, just be careful to lump non-free software (e.g. pretty much anything not copyleft) with free software if that's what you prefer.