FOSS
Hello guys, welcome back to my blog. Today I will be talking about FOSS(Free and open-source software).
I was really confused about this term during my Outreachy application process and I have come to realize, It is even bigger than I thought.
Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is both free software and open-source software where anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way, and the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software.
Most people use "open source software" or "free software"? Although there are different rules for free software licenses (four freedoms) and open source licenses (Open Source Definition). The comparison lies in that:
1. Both terms refer to essentially the same set of licenses and software, and
2. Each term implies different underlying values.
“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
The term “free software” is sometimes misunderstood—it has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom.
Four essential freedoms of Free Software
To meet the definition of "free software", the FSF requires the software's licensing to respect the civil liberties / human rights of what the FSF calls the software user's "Four Essential Freedoms".
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Open Source Software is something that you can modify as per your needs, share with others without any licensing violation burden. When we say Open Source, the source code of the software is available publicly with Open Source licenses like GNU (GPL) which allows you to edit source code and distribute it. Read these licenses and you will realize that these licenses are created to help us.
The concept of "free software" was developed by Richard Stallman in the 1980s. The focus is on what the recipient of software is permitted to do with the software: "Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software."
"Open source" focuses on the practical consequences enabled by these licenses: surprisingly effective collaboration on software development. Free software came first. Later, it became apparent that free software was leading to remarkable collaboration dynamics
This assortment of terms has contributed to the confusion between open source and free source. Would a neutral term be useful? Or is the attempt to separate the associated values a flawed goal? Is a neutral term inappropriate because there are significant free software projects that would not be considered open source? Or the reverse? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
I was really confused about this term during my Outreachy application process and I have come to realize, It is even bigger than I thought.
Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is both free software and open-source software where anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way, and the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software.
Most people use "open source software" or "free software"? Although there are different rules for free software licenses (four freedoms) and open source licenses (Open Source Definition). The comparison lies in that:
1. Both terms refer to essentially the same set of licenses and software, and
2. Each term implies different underlying values.
“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
The term “free software” is sometimes misunderstood—it has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom.
Four essential freedoms of Free Software
To meet the definition of "free software", the FSF requires the software's licensing to respect the civil liberties / human rights of what the FSF calls the software user's "Four Essential Freedoms".
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Open Source Software is something that you can modify as per your needs, share with others without any licensing violation burden. When we say Open Source, the source code of the software is available publicly with Open Source licenses like GNU (GPL) which allows you to edit source code and distribute it. Read these licenses and you will realize that these licenses are created to help us.
The concept of "free software" was developed by Richard Stallman in the 1980s. The focus is on what the recipient of software is permitted to do with the software: "Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software."
"Open source" focuses on the practical consequences enabled by these licenses: surprisingly effective collaboration on software development. Free software came first. Later, it became apparent that free software was leading to remarkable collaboration dynamics
This assortment of terms has contributed to the confusion between open source and free source. Would a neutral term be useful? Or is the attempt to separate the associated values a flawed goal? Is a neutral term inappropriate because there are significant free software projects that would not be considered open source? Or the reverse? Please share your thoughts in the comments.