You're viewing a single thread.
Open source? Hmmm MacOs? Android?
How is macOS open source? It’s not just Darwin you know. Some might even argue it’s an abuse of the BSD licenses.
macOS uses the lack of defense that BSD provides (for Darwin). That's what Open Source licences are.
There are more examples of Open Source project:
MINIX 3 -> Derives into one of the worst pieces of malware ever. The Intel Management Engine.
There is no such Open Source licence infringement. Open Source licences like BSD clause 3 are permissive in every aspect (well maybe not in TM part). They are so open that they allow restricting the freedom of the software.
Linus Torvalds already stated (LinuxCon 2016):
Over the years I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about. I'll use it myself. If there’s a library routine that I just want to say 'hey, this is useful to anybody and I’m not going to maintain this,' I’ll put it under the BSD license.
Referring to Free (libre) Software as Open Source is a disqualification of those projects and their philosophy.
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.
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.
You realize that Linux is not Open Source.
Huh?
Likely one of those "free software" nerds...
Swapping concepts of projects that explicitly are Free Software and advertising them as Open Source is a quite disrespectful statement against the creators of those projects.
It's like confusing left from right. It completely negates the intentions they had when opting for a Free Software licence.
If you are not able to distinguish them at least refer them as FOSS as some kind of respectful attempt.
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.
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.
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.