Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Sorry to be nit-picky, but software released under the Apache 2.0 _is_ also free/libre software. Free software ≠ copylefted software (the latter is, approximately, a subset of the former). In most cases (vast majority?), Open Source software (as defined by the OSI) is also Free (as defined by the FSF).


> In most cases (vast majority?), Open Source software (as defined by the OSI) is also Free (as defined by the FSF).

It is a bit tricky here. Based on the situation, the same software can be some times be open source AND free software, or open source only (ie, not free software).

Eg: Linux kernel. When it is run on your computer, usually it is mostly free-software (linux-libre would be fully free). When it is run on your router, they (vendor) shall give you the source code, but may not allow you to modify it. This is violation of freedom 1 (The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish). Then it won't be a free software, but just open source. You can't even confirm whether the source code they gave corresponds to the binary run in the router.


> When it is run on your router, they (vendor) shall give you the source code, but may not allow you to modify it.

not at all true.. not being able to easily modify the binaries on your router is not the same as modifying the code which they distributed to you..

it is a license for the source code - not the runtime application of the source code.


> not at all true.. not being able to easily modify the binaries on your router is not the same as modifying the code which they distributed to you..

> it is a license for the source code - not the runtime application of the source code.

That is a fundamental difference between "open source" and "free software".

See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html, specifically the explanation of freedom 1.


You're right of course. I should have said "the hassle of copyleft".


That is not what the FSF writes.


According to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html :

> It is not worth the trouble to use copyleft for most small programs.

and they recommend Apache 2.0. What are you disagreeing with?


Thanks for the reference, I missed that section! 300 lines, so mostly scripts that this recommendation applies to. That's not 'small projects' if you ask me.


Rare exceptions include CC0 and WTFPL, which are not OSI-approved and thus are free software licenses but maybe not open source licenses, and Artistic 1.0, which is not FSF-approved and thus open source but not free software.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: