Merge pull request #89 from jrtechs/litreview2

FLOSS vs FOSS

blogContent/posts/open-source/foss-vs-floss.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+Last week for HFOSS(Humanitarian Free and Open Source Software
+IGME-582) at RIT I  was introduced to three articles that picked apart
+the differences between Free Software and Open Source Software.  
+
+- [How I coined the term 'open source' by Christine Peterson](https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software)
+- [When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior by Benjamin Mako Hill](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html)
+- [Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software by Richard Stallman](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)
+
+Peterson's article discussed how she coined the term Open Source and
+how that term became widely used. She explained that "Open Source" was
+a new term to replace "Free Software" because it would resonate better
+with businesses. At that time(and still to this day) Free software was
+confused with software that you can get at no cost; Free Software is
+really free as in speech rather than free as in beer. Peterson's
+phrase "Open Source" gained a foot hold with larger communities and
+businesses because it focused on the practical benefits of doing
+software development in a public manner. Open Source software focused
+on collaboration and how building software in the public could improve
+security -- this really enticed businesses. To this day we see that
+businesses like Microsoft latch on to the phrase Open Source.   
+
+![Microsoft Loves open source](media/floss/microsoft-linux.jpg)
+*Image: [Microsoft](https://news.microsoft.com/)*
+
+The divergence in phrasing represented an ideological split in the
+community. People like Stallman in the Free Software camp felt like
+the Open Source movement lacked integrity because they don't focus on
+freedom. In his article "Why Open Source misses the point of Free
+Software", Stallman almost mocks the fact that some open source Linux
+distributions would even offer the option to package
+proprietary(non-free) software. This ideological split is often
+referred to as "FOSS" vs "FLOSS". FOSS means for "Free and Open Source
+Software" where FLOSS means "Free/Libre Open Source software". 
+
+![Ven diagram of open source vs free software](media/floss/diagram.png)
+
+Hill echoes the views of Stallman in his article, however, he points
+out that in practice Free Software isn't doing "better" than Open
+Source Software or proprietary software. The median number of
+contributors to a SourceForge  project is one. The large success of
+Open Source Software is large in due to the fact that it is able to
+draw in more developers and retain financial support from companies. 
+It is also important to point out that most projects on Github
+currently have no license making them neither Open Source or Free
+software. Hill also re-emphasizes Stallman's point that excellent code
+can be written  in proprietary applications. The major difference is
+where the focus on freedom is. 
+
+# What's the big difference?
+
+Despite the large overlap between Open Source and Free Software, there
+are a few key distinctions. At a high level you can say that Free
+Software favors freedom, however, that is putting it in a vague notion
+that can be interpreted in many ways. You could also put it in terms
+of the [four R's of Free
+Software](https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/4freedoms.en.html):  
+
+- Read
+- Run
+- Repurpose
+- Redistribute
+
+If you really want to know if software is Free Software, you can
+examine each of the four R's and ask yourself if the software is
+compliant with these standards. This is helpful since not all open
+source projects are compliant with the four R's of software freedom.
+However, I like to analyze the differences between FOSS and FLOSS by
+looking at the three major license types.  
+
+![License types](media/floss/types.png)
+
+Although these are not distinct lines, most people that are hard core
+FLOSS people favor copyleft licensing where Open Source projects
+typically favor permissive licensing. Permissive licensing would be
+favored by companies because it enables them to easily use Open Source
+software in proprietary applications and mix it with other
+applications. Copyleft licensing like the GPL v3 is favored by Free
+Software because it prevents people from mixing their software with
+non-free software. An example of this would be Android where non-free
+components are mixed with the Linux kernel due to more permissive
+nature of the GPL v2. 
+
+# Why does this matter?
+
+At times this divide feels like petty hair splitting. However, the
+FOSS vs FLOSS mindset directly influences licensing which has serious
+ramifications on how you can use  software. Making your program GPL
+compliant can be a serious hassle for companies looking to use Free
+Software. 
+
+# What should we do moving forward?
+
+While many within FLOSS community may mock and tease companies trying
+to  enter the Open Source world, I believe that we should embrace it.
+We still need to remain vigilant in ensuring that the software we uses
+protects our privacy, but, having more corporate involvement in the
+open source sphere will help us move away from black box software. 
+