Indeed. Anything can be corrupted by ill intent but the core principles define its potential when properly applied.https://twitter.com/accessjames/status/760736955558682624 …
-
-
Replying to @aral
@accessjames@schiessle It's just that FS devs are more aware of their principles than OS devs and hence everything labeled FS > OS2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Core difference: X Corp can take OS Project A, fence it off, invest $100M to improve it, not share back.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
that's a question of the license, not whether you call or Open Source or Free Software
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
? Intimately related. The license is the codification of the principles. eg., MIT = OS. GPL = FS.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Both, MIT and GPL are Free Software and Open Source licenses. That's also covered by https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/comparison …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @schiessle @accessjames
@fsfe Do we need a new term for what@aral means? "Ethical Software" ? :) (or is that already used?)7 replies 0 retweets 1 like
But yes, if FSFE include licenses you can fence off under “free” we need a new term… +@schiessle @accessjames @fsfe
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.