Incorrect description of OSS vs. free/libre software

[fkohrt]

In the section The Open Source community and its governance it reads:

The core principle of re-use is what separates OSS from ‘Free Software’.

and:

The big difference between free software and OSS is that the former must distribute updated versions under the same license as the original, whereas newer versions of OSS can be distributed under different licenses. FOSS combines the best of both worlds.

What I really like about how the module is currently written is that it makes clear that open source is not just about the source being accessible. However, the cited paragraphs are probably misleading in the difference between free software and OSS: It's not about copyleft/re-use. I'll detail that in the following, along with some other suggestions for improvement. The last paragraph contains an idea on how I would explain the difference between free and OSS in this module.

Differentiation between software and license

I think it would be better to differentiate more precisely between the software and its license. Free software, as understood by the FSF, respects the user's freedom. A necessary requirement is that it is accompanied by a free license, because the default is that all rights stay with the author. [It is probably not the only requirement, as some software under a free license still artificially limits its users (example here). For now, let's call software under a free license free and software under a open source license open source.]

Accordingly, for a software license to be free, the license does not need to have a copyleft clause. Take, for example, the MIT license (Expat or X11, to be precise): it's not a copyleft license but still a free software license (source; more about this overlap here).

Differentiation between license requirement and license itself

I think the relationship between license requirements and licenses could also be highlighted more: OSI's OSS definition is a license requirement, as is the FSF's definition of free software (and thus, free software licenses). Various licenses may then be either free, open source, or both. It then can be argued that free may be a subset of open source:

Differences between free and open source software

It is expected by the FSF that all free software should also considered OSS by the OSI. For the other way round, there may be cases where this is not true, but most of the OSS should be free software as well. If requiring free software over OSS is not so much about the amount of software matching that criteria, what else is it about?

Differences between requiring free software vs. OSS

Free software is about protecting the user's freedom. From this perspective, nonfree software is a social problem. OSS instead has a more pragmatic approach, it is centered around the product being better in the end. Nonfree software just cuts efficiency on that road.

This makes clear that requiring free software instead of OSS is about spreading freedom as a value.

FOSS

Now, regarding FOSS: It's a term derived to cover both OSS and free software. Its practical value may be limited, however, as it only adds to the complexity and stays neutral about the actual difference between the two. I certainly wouldn't call it “the best of both worlds”, which sounds as if open source and free are features that can be meaningful combined—and not philosophies with different goals. Free software should (see above) also be OSS, so the only “best of both worlds” would be to choose free software.

Copyleft vs. public domain

While the difference between OSS licenses and free software licenses is not about copyleft clauses, the copyleft vs. public domain conflict may still be worth mentioning.

For someone who believes in the user's freedom, is it better to aim for most permissive licensing (releasing in the public domain) and thus allowing others to limit the users of their derived versions again? Or better make the own work more restrictive in the first place (copyleft), contrary to the higher goal of freedom, but more resistant in the long run?

The OpenStreetMap's wiki has some thoughts about this here.

Further thoughts

Similar to the comparison between open source and free is that between Fecher's and Friesike's Pragmatic School and Democratic School: again, it's about (research) efficiency vs. access to knowledge as a means on its own. These different goals and values may still lead to the same practical behavior.

This actually may be the best way to introduce the reader to the differences without adding to much complexity.

Another interesting comparison is that to Stalder's Commons vs Post-democracy, which are about input and output legitimation. But probably not for this guide ;)

[Protohedgehog]

This is super interesting, thank you @fkohrt. Do you think you could submit a PR with any edits that we need to make, and I can port them into the live module ASAP? No worries if this is a bit too much effort.

[fkohrt]

@Protohedgehog sure, done in #86

I removed the mention of Ubuntu as it is a prominent example of software that can't be considered free. The FSF is relatively strict with operating systems, see here for their current list of GNU/Linux distros that are considered free... the list with nonfree distros is quite longer.

edit Oh, and I wasn't sure wether to only modify the markdown version or something else as well.

edit 2 And I would probably remove the link in your resources as it contains some other inaccuracies as well.

edit 3 better resources include copyleft.org/guide/, FreedomDefined.org, the FSF's license recommendations, the FSFE's free software basics or the Public License Selector at ufal.github.io/public-license-selector/.

[Protohedgehog]

OK, awesome, thanks @fkohrt!