#FOSS vs. #FLOSS...
Choosing an open-source software #license was a little trickier than I expected.
Some explanations encouraged #copyleft licenses, to make sure the software will always be free. Sounded like a good idea - when given a bunch of options, I tend to choose the most thorough route by default. #Linux has a #GPL license, and clearly made an impact.
The #AGPL covers all the bases. But it's quite long, and strangely authoritarian, imposing a lot of rules in the name of making the software free. It wasn't what I was expecting to find in an open-source license.
Then I found a video of Linus Torvalds actually arguing against GPL v3. He used v2 for Linux, not "v2 or later", and didn't think v3 should have been considered the same licence.
The #MIT license is wonderfully short, just a few readable paragraphs. I'd have gladly chosen it, except that it doesn't explicitly cover patents.
I landed on the #Apache licence (v2). It seemed the best fit for my project, to let people use it as freely as they like, and didn't impose anything arduous.
I would've been happy to guarantee users the right to the code no matter who builds what with it, but I want people to be able to use my ideas without having to choose the same license for everything they touch, and without jumping through hoops.
Maybe it's odd to say permissive licenses are freer than strong copyleft - I don't know. It just seems more free if people can use it easily without red tape, whoever they are, for whatever they like. If this is part of the difference between FOSS and this new term "FLOSS", I'm happy with the former.
Grace and Truth
npub1ad…hq9e6
2026-01-13 20:48:27 UTC
Author Public Key
npub1adnnfrsjn7tlhqlkyptkgdpdv9958575gra3s2s7puzppkkrvzfqnhq9e6Published at
2026-01-13 20:48:27 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "f8deffd40ee5dc69587785d2955f8ae66ea4138f495c7da82ff250c4a0706ca3",
"pubkey": "eb67348e129f97fb83f6205764342d614b43d3d440fb182a1e0f0410dac36092",
"created_at": 1768337307,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"FOSS"
],
[
"t",
"FLOSS"
],
[
"t",
"license"
],
[
"t",
"copyleft"
],
[
"t",
"Linux"
],
[
"t",
"GPL"
],
[
"t",
"AGPL"
],
[
"t",
"MIT"
],
[
"t",
"Apache"
]
],
"content": "#FOSS vs. #FLOSS...\nChoosing an open-source software #license was a little trickier than I expected.\n\nSome explanations encouraged #copyleft licenses, to make sure the software will always be free. Sounded like a good idea - when given a bunch of options, I tend to choose the most thorough route by default. #Linux has a #GPL license, and clearly made an impact. \nThe #AGPL covers all the bases. But it's quite long, and strangely authoritarian, imposing a lot of rules in the name of making the software free. It wasn't what I was expecting to find in an open-source license. \nThen I found a video of Linus Torvalds actually arguing against GPL v3. He used v2 for Linux, not \"v2 or later\", and didn't think v3 should have been considered the same licence. \n\nThe #MIT license is wonderfully short, just a few readable paragraphs. I'd have gladly chosen it, except that it doesn't explicitly cover patents. \n\nI landed on the #Apache licence (v2). It seemed the best fit for my project, to let people use it as freely as they like, and didn't impose anything arduous. \nI would've been happy to guarantee users the right to the code no matter who builds what with it, but I want people to be able to use my ideas without having to choose the same license for everything they touch, and without jumping through hoops. \n\nMaybe it's odd to say permissive licenses are freer than strong copyleft - I don't know. It just seems more free if people can use it easily without red tape, whoever they are, for whatever they like. If this is part of the difference between FOSS and this new term \"FLOSS\", I'm happy with the former. \n\n",
"sig": "9916f60302498478e587a4b78b2a753e4ec3e0b7f05dbf25a650c32355b1ce06191a661b28b0b6a1b6a845e3a21f5f492be9f0c9ff31c410b44cd0e17f364b22"
}