I always have to grouse when someone tries to separate "free software" and "open source".
If we define "open source software" as any software that meets the Open Source Definition (OSD), and we define "free software" as any software that meets the requirements of the Four Freedoms, then it is an easy matter to map the 10 requirements of the OSD to the four requirements of free software.
Thus, by definition, open source software is free software and vice versa.
The problem with the Free Software definition is those pesky words "so you can help your neighbor". Sounds all communisty, right? Those free software nerds must be just a bunch of anti-business hippies.
But ... when I see people trying to make a hard distinction between the two, it is usually a precursor to "fauxpen source". First, they try to separate the freedom aspect away from open source, and then when they try to take away a freedom or two out of the OSD (such a the right to create and distribute derivative works) they hide behind "well, you can still see the source so it must be 'open', right? This isn't 'free' software."
Wrong.
My default is to say "open source" (heck I'm posting this on opensource.com) and by that I mean software that is just better because it meets the requirements of the OSD. but I'll also say "free and open software" or "free software" when focusing on the freedom aspect of things.
I'm not saying John Mark is purposely trying to make a distinction, he raises some good points in his article, but we should always be clear that there is no practical difference between the two - it is more a question of intent.
Authored Comments
Nice write-up. We're big fans of Mattermost, and if you happen to use OpenNMS instead of Zabbix, we have a notification strategy as well:
https://docs.opennms.org/opennms/releases/latest/guide-admin/guide-admi…
I always have to grouse when someone tries to separate "free software" and "open source".
If we define "open source software" as any software that meets the Open Source Definition (OSD), and we define "free software" as any software that meets the requirements of the Four Freedoms, then it is an easy matter to map the 10 requirements of the OSD to the four requirements of free software.
I did it back in 2009: https://www.adventuresinoss.com/2009/05/07/fauxpen-source/
Thus, by definition, open source software is free software and vice versa.
The problem with the Free Software definition is those pesky words "so you can help your neighbor". Sounds all communisty, right? Those free software nerds must be just a bunch of anti-business hippies.
But ... when I see people trying to make a hard distinction between the two, it is usually a precursor to "fauxpen source". First, they try to separate the freedom aspect away from open source, and then when they try to take away a freedom or two out of the OSD (such a the right to create and distribute derivative works) they hide behind "well, you can still see the source so it must be 'open', right? This isn't 'free' software."
Wrong.
My default is to say "open source" (heck I'm posting this on opensource.com) and by that I mean software that is just better because it meets the requirements of the OSD. but I'll also say "free and open software" or "free software" when focusing on the freedom aspect of things.
I'm not saying John Mark is purposely trying to make a distinction, he raises some good points in his article, but we should always be clear that there is no practical difference between the two - it is more a question of intent.