We and our 692 partners (vendors) collect and process personal data (such as IP addresses or device identifiers) for the purpose of displaying personalized ads and measuring our advertising success.
No thanks.
I wonder which license they are going to use. Is it gonna be just an open source one or full-on FOSS?
In “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software,” Stallman explains: “The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.”
FOSS is just the term for both groups together (Free and Open Source Software).
From reviewing the license, the portions under the ee directory are not open source, they’re source-available with some additional grants of rights given certain conditions.
No, the portions outside the EE directory are both open source and free software because it satisfies the definitions of both. The software in the EE directory satisfies neither. The combined work is neither, it’s a mix of FOSS and source-available.
No thanks.
I wonder which license they are going to use. Is it gonna be just an open source one or full-on FOSS?
Um, open source is FOSS, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Maybe you’re talking about source-available?
No it isn’t. Open Source is not inherently Free and Open Source. This is the whole point of licensing agreements.
Open source software is practically the same as free software, with only a handful of deviations:
FOSS is just the term for both groups together (Free and Open Source Software).
You have it backwards. Free and Open Source software is Open Source (subset). But Open Source is not Free and Open Source (superset).
Langfuse is a great example of where this is the case: https://github.com/langfuse/langfuse/blob/main/LICENSE
It is open source, but all features under the
eefolder are not free, thus it is not FOSS.From reviewing the license, the portions under the ee directory are not open source, they’re source-available with some additional grants of rights given certain conditions.
Here’s the definition I use for “open source”, and here’s the one I use for “free software”. Most (all?) free software licenses meet the definition of free software, but not all open source licenses meet the definition of free software, so that’s why I tend to set that free software is a subset of open source software.
That is exactly what I said above.
No, the portions outside the EE directory are both open source and free software because it satisfies the definitions of both. The software in the EE directory satisfies neither. The combined work is neither, it’s a mix of FOSS and source-available.