[License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS

[Johnny A. Solbu]

On Sunday 29 March 2020 16:01, Hillel Coren wrote:
> I think the larger point here is keeping a distinction been OSS and FOSS.
> Our app is OSS but it isn't free

Then it is not Open Source Software.
Open Source Software is by definition also Free Software.
The major difference is the focus on what is important in communication to users and developers.

Unless you are talking about «free of charge», which has nothing to do with the «F» in FOSS.
«Free» is _only_ referencing to the «Freedom» meaning of the word. It does not in anyway refer to price.
FOSS is short for «Free and Open Source Software» which again is short for «Free Software and Open Source Software». (I.e. no need to have «Software» twice in the sentence, makes it easier to pronounce.)

If something in the code requires a license key or payment in order to function,
then the code is not open source, it is proprietary.

However paying for access to code is allowed, as long as the code is Free Software.
RedHat Enterprise Linux is an example of Free Software you need to buy in order to accuire, but where you have the freedom to also give it away to others.
CentOS was made on this basis. Someone just copied all of RHEL's source rpms, rebranded it, rebuildt and published it. They where later accuired by RedHat itself, who is the current publisher of CentOS, where nothing cost money.

-- 
Johnny A. Solbu
web site,   https://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200329/a969483f/attachment-0001.asc>