> Thus the software is "open source" but it is not free software. No, it is absolutely not. The founders of the open source movement, the Open Source Initiative, Debian (which also uses the term "open source"), many software communities and even several government agencies all mean the same thing by "open source" (with disagreements on licenses that are on the very boundary of that category) and software like that is absolutely *NOT* open source. "Open source" and "free software" are synonymous, or almost synonymous, when it comes to describing software categories or licenses. The open source movement and the free software movement, on the other hand, are two different movements with different ideas. The JSON license is not an open source license by any means. See: - [1]https://opensource.org/osd - [2]https://www.debian.org/social_contract - [3]https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html - [4]https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html - [5]http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html - [6]https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/ The software is source available, not open source.
References 1. https://opensource.org/osd 2. https://www.debian.org/social_contract 3. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html 4. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html 5. http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html 6. https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss