> This is also where Free and Open source diverge: Open Source lets someone block others from forking their fork, whereas Free Software requires that forks remain free to be forked themselves.
This is the same tired nonsense hearsay that all the people who got in FOSS as a religion and don't really understand the licensing. The licenses that OSI and FSF approve as FOSS are literally the same and they have to guarantee the same freedoms. OSI is just nicer with industry and have actual professional leadership.
Source available and fair source licenses aren't seen "kosher" by either party.
> licenses that OSI and FSF approve as FOSS are literally the same and they have to guarantee the same freedoms. OSI is just nicer with industry and have actual professional leadership.
OSI vs FSF has nothing to do with the point at hand.
The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples
of the distinction between "open source" and "free software."
> people who got in FOSS as a religion
Oh no! Not religion!
This is a ad-hominem argument based on anti-religious bigotry.
> don't really understand the licensing.
Again ad-hominem.
Quoth Wikipedia [1]
> Free software, libre software, libreware sometimes known as freedom-respecting software is computer software distributed under open-source licenses that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions.
> [...] Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.
> The right to study and modify a computer program entails that the source code—the preferred format for making changes—be made available to users of that program.
The requirement that those distributing the software give to their users the same rights given to themselves is the defining distinction between open source & free software.
> The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples of the distinction between "open source" and "free software."
The FSF and OSI both disagree with you.
The old BSD 4-clause is a FSF approved Free Software License. It is not an OSI-approved Open Source License (because of the advertising clause.) The newer 2- and 3-clause BSD licenses and the GPL are all both FSF Free Software and OSI Open Source licenses. What they do demonstrate is the distinction the FSF makes between copyleft Free Software licenses (which the GPL is), and non-copyleft Free Software licenses (which the BSD Licenses are)
But Free Software and Open Source are almost identical.
"Businesses don't want to have to spend time clarifying the libre/gratis distinction every time they use a a concise shorthand to describe licensing" is a very different claim than the upthread one that the actual terms of the BSD license and the GPL illustrate a substantive difference in meaning between the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source".
But, despite being a non-sequitur, I believe your statement in correct.
This is the same tired nonsense hearsay that all the people who got in FOSS as a religion and don't really understand the licensing. The licenses that OSI and FSF approve as FOSS are literally the same and they have to guarantee the same freedoms. OSI is just nicer with industry and have actual professional leadership.
Source available and fair source licenses aren't seen "kosher" by either party.