Neat project, thanks!
But, I gotta ask... what does the "L" in FLOSS stand for? :-)
(I've only ever heard of FOSS.)
All OSS software is inherently without cost, that seems unquestioned here. So free only ever means one thing to non-laypeople, in this context. So isn’t FOSS already the neutral middle ground between OSS and FS??
Regardless, I’m struggling to conceive of how a piece of software could be OS but not F. I guess if it’s, like, surveillance software known to be used by governments…? Maybe OSS that is paradoxically restrictively licensed, threatening any forks or unauthorized compilations with legal action? That seems like a terribly naive proposition, but I’m sure it’s been floated by at least one MBA…
In other words: you can argue all day about the justifications for OS’ing your S being more related to removing cost barriers or to sharing control, but in the end, you clearly have to do both. Making “F[L]OSS” redundant at best, confusing at worst!
Surely I’m missing something, bc I know this has been litigated for many thousands of hours both pre- and post-Eternal September. But rn it just comes across as baseless pedantry
I don't think so, you could charge money for FOSS (like charging for a built binary but having the source be FOSS) and it'll still be as much FOSS as any other FOSS out there. It isn't very common to do so, but there isn't any inherently wrong or incorrect with charging for FOSS.
You don't make a binary publicly available, then you put the binary behind a paywall.
Some examples:
- Ardour - Lets you pull down the source and compile locally for free, or you pay to use their compiled binaries. Author/creator of Ardour hangs around on HN, maybe they could share their experience if they see this.
- Radium - Another DAW like Ardour, does it the same way.
- Fritzing - Designer for PCBs, same approach, pay for the binaries if you'd like, but free to compile from source if you can
I'm sure there are many more examples out there, but these are the ones I thought about when I wrote my previous comment.
With that in mind, the proposition is basically just the honor system. Which maybe works a little sometimes, among professionals? I paid for SublimeText to support them, for example. But WinRar is a very compelling counter example.
It feels like publishing a pdf of a book but with a big red “don’t click this until you’ve Venmo’d me $5!” above it. Regardless of what I individually would do, that’s just kinda… goofy?
Open Source was a later "rebranding" of free software by some people who fell out with Stallman and wanted to emphasise more the practical advantages over the ethical ones. Stallman wasn't happy because he felt (and still feels) the most important thing is that each person should be able to do computing freely.
Anyway, long story short, free software is nothing to do with cost. Horrible acronyms like "FLOSS" are to try to make everyone happy.
There is open source software that requires payment to obtain.
There is open source software that you are not free to do whatever you want with (non-libre)
There is software available at no cost which is neither open source or libre.
Just about every permutation of these 3 concepts has some actual example in the real world. Please do not promote the idea that they are in any way synonyms.
Like the other commenter said, the F in F(L)OSS does mean free as in speech, not necessarily free as in beer.
I've been in the GNU/libre/open source world since 1986. My experience is that the L (for libre) was added specifically because the english "Free" is ambiguous and too often interpreted as without-cost/free-as-in-beer/gratis.
Stallman wants people to say FLOSS to denote free software versus open source software, and my interpretation of this article is that he only deems the GNU licenses to be truly free (libre) software.
Simply has never been the case.
One example I am familiar with is an (old) project called LinuxSampler. It was (probably incorrectly) licensed GPL+modification clause that prevented its use in any commercial hardware project.
There have been some other projects that are released under what might be termed "GPL-but-no-military-use".
The people I know who have added clauses like this do not believe they are breaking the spirit of open source; I'm not here to insist that they are right or wrong.
And let's not forget, licenses are legal contracts, so it behooves people even more to get them correct lest they be sued.