Hacker News Reader

Comment by zopa | Hacker News Reader

This, exactly. It's not a developer's job to package their code for every imaginable distro; it's their job to make the build process as simple as possible and let maintainers and users handle the packaging if they want the software. The time spent chasing down the hassles in the post would be better spent thinning the dependencies, if that's remotely feasible.

View on HN

If developers can’t be bothered to ship their software to my platform, what is stopped someone else from stealing their FOSS (clone and rebrand) and shipping it themselves?

If I’m going to take on maintenance burden then I might as well make it how I want with a fork and take the notoriety.

> what is stopped someone else from stealing their FOSS (clone and rebrand) and shipping it themselves?

Nothing at all. This is not stealing. The term is "forking." It's how GCC got un-stagnated (see egcs), and how we got the ecosystem of alternate wifi firmware (two examples that come readily to mind.)

This is also where Free and Open source diverge: Open Source lets someone block others from forking their fork, whereas Free Software requires that forks remain free to be forked themselves.

> This is also where Free and Open source diverge: Open Source lets someone block others from forking their fork, whereas Free Software requires that forks remain free to be forked themselves.

This is the same tired nonsense hearsay that all the people who got in FOSS as a religion and don't really understand the licensing. The licenses that OSI and FSF approve as FOSS are literally the same and they have to guarantee the same freedoms. OSI is just nicer with industry and have actual professional leadership.

Source available and fair source licenses aren't seen "kosher" by either party.

> licenses that OSI and FSF approve as FOSS are literally the same and they have to guarantee the same freedoms. OSI is just nicer with industry and have actual professional leadership.

OSI vs FSF has nothing to do with the point at hand.

The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples of the distinction between "open source" and "free software."

> people who got in FOSS as a religion

Oh no! Not religion!

This is a ad-hominem argument based on anti-religious bigotry.

> don't really understand the licensing.

Again ad-hominem.

Quoth Wikipedia [1]

> Free software, libre software, libreware sometimes known as freedom-respecting software is computer software distributed under open-source licenses that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions.

> [...] Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.

> The right to study and modify a computer program entails that the source code—the preferred format for making changes—be made available to users of that program.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

The requirement that those distributing the software give to their users the same rights given to themselves is the defining distinction between open source & free software.

> The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples of the distinction between "open source" and "free software."

The FSF and OSI both disagree with you.

The old BSD 4-clause is a FSF approved Free Software License. It is not an OSI-approved Open Source License (because of the advertising clause.) The newer 2- and 3-clause BSD licenses and the GPL are all both FSF Free Software and OSI Open Source licenses. What they do demonstrate is the distinction the FSF makes between copyleft Free Software licenses (which the GPL is), and non-copyleft Free Software licenses (which the BSD Licenses are)

But Free Software and Open Source are almost identical.

Open Source as a term, however, was created by corporations so they wouldn't have to touch the word "free" with a hundred-foot pole

"Businesses don't want to have to spend time clarifying the libre/gratis distinction every time they use a a concise shorthand to describe licensing" is a very different claim than the upthread one that the actual terms of the BSD license and the GPL illustrate a substantive difference in meaning between the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source".

But, despite being a non-sequitur, I believe your statement in correct.

Interesting. Citing sources (heh) would have helped here. I found more sources, and it looks like my understanding is wrong and yours is right:

https://opensource.com/article/17/11/open-source-or-free-sof...

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to find a more accurate term for what I was trying to articulate, once I've dug into things more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com