Free Software or Open Source Software? Is There A Difference?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- "Free software" versus "open source software." Which term is correct? Do they mean the same thing or is there a difference?
📰 REFERENCED:
www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-s...
opensource.org/osd-annotated
💰 WANT TO SUPPORT THE CHANNEL?
Patreon: / distrotube
Paypal: www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
👕 BUY SHIRTS AND MUGS:
Help support this channel by purchasing these fine t-shirts, hoodies and mugs.
teespring.com/stores/distrotube
🗨️ SOCIAL PLATFORMS:
Diaspora: diasp.org/people/792034802a05...
Mastodon: mastodon.technology/@distrotube
IRC: irc://freenode #distrotube
GOPHER: gopher://distro.tube
📁 MY CONFIGS:
GitLab: gitlab.com/dwt1
Your support is very much appreciated. Thanks, guys! - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![อาจารย์ยอด : สวยกินคน [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_-TIJOwkRA4/mqdefault.jpg)
free software and open source software are different in ideology... how dare you say they’re the same after you sang the Free Software Song with RMS... 😏
I might go see Stallman speak in person in a couple of weeks. I hope he doesn't see this video...or the free software song video. That would be awkward.
DistroTube lol
@@DistroTube if he did, I'd ask how. It'd be interesting if Stallman watched videos from TH-cam.
why not "freedom software"
it takes little effort to append the dom and it more clearly defines what they mean
Liberty software would be a good term as well.
What's wrong with Libre? Much of our language is already from other languages.
@@Zellonous nothing wrong with libre however if they insist on using free to mean freedom i see no reason why they shouldn't make themselves more clear and say freedom instead
I personally use the term "freedom-respecting software" when talking about FOSS.
LibreWare????
I never noticed the term 'free software' until I got into Linux
That's sad
OpenSource and FreeSoftware are fundamentally different. I had a longer comment but thought it was a bit much. Great show sir!
@Richard Addison Great way to say it, you may want to take care of those critical updates. :D
To be "Open Source" it basically has to be Free(dom) Software too.
From the OpenSource org site:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
@@RedFenceAnime
Actually thats wrong,
that last point just means that the original developer has to, at least, allow other developers to release their derived works under his original license.
However the original developer is completely free to use a license that grants additional rights to other developers, if he so chooses. Such as the right to redistribute their derived works under an entirely different license (MIT and Unlicense allows this for example).
And this is the problem. Without the "same license clause" always being enforced (like it is in FSF licenses) any software that grant these additional rights (which almost all open source projects do) is essentially just as good as proprietary software itself (because anyone is free to take it and re-release it without its original freedoms).
@Richard Addison
Proprietary software can not be "Open Source" software!
It can not meet the requirements to be called "Open Source" as stated by "The Open Source Definition" set by the public-benefit corporation called the "Open Source Initiative"
opensource.org/osd
_If a person can't understand what I said then it's not wasting my time to clarify what I meant._
@Richard Addison "Open" software that is not free is source-available, not open source.
I see what you mean but it's not really the same thing. Free software (in the FSF sense) means you can see the code, change it and share it. Open source simply means the code is open to anyone's eyes and anyone can reproduce it. You can of course change it and run your own changed copy, but just because it was open source, it doesn't mean that you are allowed to distribute it. That, for me, is the core difference. And I think it makes sense for a company to open source software but not make it free as well, as they might want to share sensitive algorithms but not have some random people earn on their work or even ruin an image.
Hey @DistroTube, seems like these newer videos seem to be out of sync audio/video by about 0.25ms, my OCD kicks in a bit so i thought i point it out. Thanks for a great video.
Open source doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to work on the code/redistribute it.
One of the criteria of "open source" according to the OSI is the license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.en
"Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source"
I'm not that into either term but Free software looks like an idea while Open source just seems to be a meme to me. If guys like google/apple/microsoft *lock down* open source software and make money out of it, Free Software is obviously the way to go.
@@patriarch6644 ok.. but free software don't mean that it have open code, so you don't know what it really do and can't edit it and redistribute forward..
@@SwiatLinuksa Wrong read the GPL.
@@TheMegamanx1978 thanks, so I try read it again ;)
Libre is a household word ever since Nacho Libre ; )
DOOM!
No libre is define is liberty which means freedom
Fantastic! I've never heard an explanation as clear as yours!
They should've called it Software Freedom to be more direct, so it should not be a problem.
Agreed
FCS
Fully coustumaizable software
I prefer Libre software. Open Source software does not mean it automatically respects the 4 freedoms.
I sometimes use the expression "Free, Libre and Open-Source Software" (FLOSS). It may be a bit much, but there's no confusion possible between "by the way, you can get this free copy of the software"/"by the way, you can access this source code here"/"by the way, this software fundamentally respect your freedoms as a user, here's the source code, you have the right to do all theses things with it"
@@Ybalrid or LibreWare
Hello, Good Sir. I've struggled to find the difference almost for 20 min. Thank you for claryfying this for me.
It would be useful to talk about permissive vs copyleft licenses a little. That is the key difference in this world. If Linux had been released under a permissive license our world would be a very different place. As nutty and extreme as RMS can be we owe him huge debt of gratitude for coming up with the GPL and the movement. The different licenses have their different uses depending on how the copyright holder wants their software to be used, and the details of the differences are the important thing. Mostly out of scope for a 12 minute video, yes, but worth mentioning because free and open source are not as 'the same' as the video makes them seem. Still, love your work! Cheers.
There is a difference but most people aren't coders.
Hmmm anyone can code, but few can engineer software
@@SimGunther I have spent a lot of time learning GIMP and Darktable the past year - have never attempted to hack the source. Never even looked at it.
it is the same to me. if something is not open source then it can't be free as in freedom since you have no freedom to modify it
You got me with the hip-hop analogy!
So essentially "free software" is a horrible choice for a name.
"Freedom software" would be so much better.
On Libre:
It means free, but is related to words such as "liberate" and "liberty," -usually refering to being free in the sense of being free of restraints.
We should call it Liberty software - it is a better English definition - free from the restraints of intellectual property restrictions, free from the artificial limiting of a non-scarce product - ideas.
I agree with you here, and in fact, in french we do make the difference between the two since "Libre" is itself a word, and as you said, it means being free of restraints. If we want to talk about something "free" from an economic standpoint, we use the term "Gratuit"!
I'd like to interject for a moment..
Why don't they just call it 'Freedom Software' instead of rolling out the free beer crap every time?
Very nice sound quality. I found it a little distracting that you didn't look into the camera at all. It feels like you're talking to someone else so I ended up consuming this like a podcast. Just some friendly feedback :).
"Free" = The licensing type used.
"Open Source" = Whether the code is published for viewing. It could be open source, but still under a proprietary license.
(I'm stating as I understand it. Not as absolute fact.)
That is not correct. Published code is source-available, not open source.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
Free software *and open-source software are essentially the same thing, describing software with certain licensing freedoms.*
Free software, *dating back to the 70s, emphasizes four essential freedoms including deploying, studying, redistributing, and enhancing software.*
The Free *Software Foundation emphasizes "free" as in freedom, not cost, but this can be confusing to English speakers accustomed to associating "free" with monetary cost.*
Open source *software emerged in the 90s as a term to better market the collaborative development model, addressing the confusion surrounding "free" software.*
Open source *software highlights practical benefits and collaborative development, contrasting with the moral philosophy emphasized by free software.*
While the *terms convey similar ideas, they emphasize different aspects: freedom for free software and development model for open-source software.*
Some prefer *the term "free and open-source software" (FOSS) to encompass both concepts without differentiating between them.*
Despite differing *emphases, advocates of free and open-source software don't view each other as enemies but rather see proprietary software as the common adversary.*
Made with HARPA AI
Nice video! Free as in "freedom" is subjective. I'm going to watch "Braveheart" now =)
in the middle of the discussion between free and open software, people just forgot the pain that the person credited at the end of the list must have felt
To the end user the terms might feel more or less interchangable.
To developers and more hard core users - there are significant differences. 'open source' (with lowercase O and S like in your description) means the source code is available to read. It might hint at other things but does not confirm them.
'Free software' means both 'open source' and certain rights that must be given for the software to the classed as 'free software' by the FSF.
In both definitions, it says "software available to study, modification and redistribution" I really see no difference.
It should have been called Freedom software from the beginning.
I remember the days when I would pirate games on windows
"Libre" is french word that means "free" as freedom.
Woah, they are not the same thing though! You can have an open source license that is not free. For example, a license that says you are not allowed to use it for commercial use but the source is open. That is not free, but it is open source.
Which open source license does not allow the use of the software for commercial purposes?
Software developers should just make things easy by making their software both free (as in freedom) and open source.
But the thing is that some software is free and some is open source so you can't really refer to a single piece of software (with few exceptions) as FLOSS without calling it what it is not.
Actually almost all "free software" would meet the definition for "open source software" and vice versa. It's VERY rare that a piece of software meets the criteria of one and not the other.
@@DistroTube RMS would probably spank you for calling Emacs open source.
Hey distrolovers,
I have been on a hiatus, but for the past 2 months, I have been using Fedora 29 Gnome as my only operating system on an old Intel i-3470 to run my hobby-business. The updates are sort of boring, by my distrohopping standands. I seldom even watch them anymore. I have several SSDs with a bunch of other distros that I have not updated in two months - one of which is Fedora 30. The realities of life take up all my time and more and I have not time to dilly-dally around with my computer. I will likely switch to Fedora 30 once I get some free time, only to put Fedora 29 behind me. OpenSUSE Tumbleweed with Plasma is still my favorite distro combination.
When you say Free "and Open Source" Software, the person would think the software is free of cost (gratis) and also "Open Source", they wouldn't think the software is free as in freedom.
Thanks for the video, this was something that confused me for some time hahah. Yeah FOSS rolls better for me as well
My Amd radeon R5 M430 graphics driver not supporting Linux
What i should do
You need to make a video about bspwm and try it out. It is the comfiest wm out there!
All software has it place. I tend to use software that is the most useful. Often time that would be open source. The only closed source software I have a problem with is Windows10. Automatic updates are the worst.
I like the word Open-source more with same the reason.
FYI, Richard Stallman prefers the term "FLOSS" over "FOSS" for the "Switzerland" folks
And why is that?
@@pcfreak1992 according to him, FOSS doesn't emphasize the freedom aspect compared to "FLOSS"
www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html
Free software can be closed code , open source must be shared with source code but not must be for free I good understand? :)
Free software vs Open Software is not really an attribute or quality given to a piece particular software but more of the "Why" or philosophical perspective behind the developer and/or user. Free software peoples care about the particular freedoms and principles on top of pragmatism of open source development model. Where strictly open source people may not care about software freedom, but only the pragmatism of open source development model. Hence the various Open Source Licenses and possibly why the Linux Kernal is still GPL 2 and not GPL 3.
I have always learned and know that free software not have the sources opened and shared for the community like open source software that have it for definition 😇
As in windows world there are free software meaning the cost but not the source opened. Like, I don't know, steam?!?
Cheers
Like idk, grammar?
Free as in beer!
Should have been Freedom Software. But you know humans have to make things more difficult.
free software is exactly how it sounds, there is no money exchanged for the software, free software can have closed source code and still be free software, open source software is free software due to it being open source. free software started before linux in the commodore and amiga era.
In windows we all know what free means, they have yet to discover Linux, just wait for gaming compatibility mastered, then expect the massive Exodus, whatever you do, don't convert them, prepare to migrate them slowly and organized or else they will go to the same crap they already know. I know many guides are there but persistence is the key. I am just waiting for my game and then a new video card for full migration. will keep one wifowze to study the enemy,,, nothing else.
Wow. 9 dislikes already 😮
That's from M$way OS users :))
One is a cult, the other is just a description.
This is one video, I'd disagree with you. I don't think both are same. To me free means "free of cost". I know about Stallman's view but it can be described as "freedom of choice". It's time we should differentiate the wording around "open source", "free", "freedom" etc.
I just care for open source to see my stuff. I'm not a free software commie.
I'd like to interject for a moment.
Because i humbly disagree with you sir. Free Software is always Open source, but Open source isn't always free.
Open Source doesn't always respect the 4 freedom you defined in your introduction. It only has to respect the " i'm able to study the source code freedom"
True!
There is a large difference between opensource and free-software.
Saying "I don't differentiate" just means you aren't properly representing one of the two.
OpenSUSE might be OpenSource, but it's not Free software. And you shouldn't merge those together.
FreeBSD is not necessarily free software but its open source, in some instances. So they re not the same. FreeBSD is opensource but the developer can restrict your freedom wiht the FreeBSD. He can grab a portion of code, modify and distribute or sale without sharing the code this is not free software, it does not uphold the values of freedom.
biggy and 2pac
"free" can be closed source....open source can be modded by others..
Its quite the opposite actually. Free software is free as in speech.
Free Software guys don't like any proprietary software( NVIDIA and wifi drivers)
Open Source software guys prefer open source, but don't mind running propitiatory software
Here's the thing. It's called "free" software, not "free with these other caveats software". They don't like Open source? fine, but Stallman's definition is attempting to redefine "free". It's a bad, bad definition. FOSS is somewhat more acceptable since it tries to do so in a less egregious manner.
No he isn't. Free has more than one meaning. He's just trying to put emphasis on one of those meanings. That's why people even say Libre. Richard stallman is quad lingual.
@@Zellonous www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/free
Yes, more meanings, most of which - especially the ones he uses - aren't traditional used in relationship to software. Whether you like it or not Stallman was trying to redefine what free meant by redefining the association between it's meaning and software.
I'm ok with some terms being broadened in scope - like how "person" went from meaning white, landed anglo-saxon gentry to, well, human being. But I'm not ok with stallman's broadening of the meanings of free. He's *cough*free*cough* to use the word the way he likes, but he shouldn't foolishly expect anyone else to agree with him.
The following are examples of his foolishness:
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/open-source
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
The English speaking world disagrees with Stallman's use of the word "free". The sooner he understands that the better it will be for him. FOSS is the closest he's going to get. He might have gotten closer if he wasn't so dogmatic about his own terminology.
stallman vs linus
revolution os 😊
th-cam.com/video/PcdnamUOeaA/w-d-xo.html
The 2 concepts are inseparable. The problem is that so many Libertarian-minded dudes find the very idea of 'getting something for free' offensive. That is largely the result of living in a capitalist culture, and because most of them wind up recruited by a corporation, wherein their ideals must be put aside. But the actual number of people who 'take advantage' and never give anything back in return is minimal. And if they do, they're probably lacking in some fundamental way (not a character issue, but a circumstantial one). But when you stand back and look at the big picture, 'free software' is better. Linux would NOT be what it is if it wern't built by idealistic devs who just want to do something awesome, and make a difference. And then what happens is that what was once 'free' (like Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) becomes corporatized and monetized. And then another distro pops up in its place, and is almost always better. It's just like what happens with your favorite music artists and bands. When they're young and hungry, the music is raw, emotional and real. Once they get rich and famous, it's all over!
"The problem is that so many Libertarian-minded dudes find the very idea of 'getting something for free' offensive."
There is no problem here. Libertarians are for liberty - liberty being the absence of coercion. Libertarians are against so called 'free' stuff (aka stolen) that comes from the result of a non-free involuntary institution - government, taking stuff off peaceful people to give to other people (usually their biz cronies, lackeys and themselves in first position.) The 'free stuff' comes through the violation of liberty.
Libertarians see paid services/goods as more sustainable and a better economic system for most things - but this do not rule out philanthropy, charity or voluntary work - free labour.
Libre = liberty. Libre software is liberty software. Software free from the coercion of pseudo intellectual property rights.
nb There is no Capitalist culture as there is no proper Capitalism - no free market Capitalism. Capitalism requires a system running on Capital (savings). The system is Debtism as it runs on debt. All currency is debt based, 'money' out of nothing. 97% of currency is produced through Fractional Reserve Banking - loans created out of nothing. It is the debt based money system which creates an inflationary monetary system and hence a Consumerist society as money needs to be spent because holding it means your money is devalued - savers are punished.
Libertarians are for sound money - not Debtism!
@@mkd1113 Well said! All that! 👍🏻
@@mkd1113 What you deem as 'forcing' is what some people consider the 'rule of law'. And most people who feel they are being 'forced' not to rob banks... are robbing banks. But do not forget where the 'liber' prefix comes from: 'liberal'. Either you believe in civil liberties... or you do not. Libertarianism is an alternative concocted by the ruling class (who, I can assure you, are only interested in their OWN liberties)... to 'liberalism', as much as it probably pains you to say .
@@barkingbandicoot Care to expound on that?
good content
I'm so glad English is not my native language.
I'll solve this issue. We could use the naming convention: Free and Freedom Open Source Software. FFOSS Or we can call it Free with Liberty Open Source Software. FLOSS! 😂
All open source software are free. But not all free software are open source.
That's detrimental to the free software movement bro. English speaking people must like chains.
It's like Core boot vs Libre boot.
Coreboot has non-free binarys. Libre boot does not.
I will try not to mention initfreedom :)
"Free as in cost" confused with "Free as in freedom" - change your language then.
FreeBSD > Linux 😛
Thank you. I FLOSS all day, every day. Except for Chrome, Netflix, etc.
Use firefox instead of Chrome.
I floss every morning