> I'd have gladly chosen it, except that it doesn't explicitly cover patents.
It does: https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license
> If this is part of the difference between FOSS and this new term "FLOSS",
It's not.
There is absolutely no difference in meaning whatsoever, none at all.
The "F" in both is for "free" as in "free software". The "L" in the second is simply to *clarify* that the F means "libre", not "free of charge". It's the case either way, the L is just supposed to clarify it.
Non-copyleft permissive licenses and copyleft licenses all qualify as "FOSS", "FLOSS", "free software" and "open source" licenses.
The MIT license is a FOSS license and a FLOSS license. The GPL is a FOSS license and a FLOSS license.
This isn't, of course, to say copyleft and permissive licenses are the same. They are not, that's why we have the word "copyleft" to describe the difference.
If you prefer non-copyleft licenses for your software, that's totally fine, of course. I'm not trying to argue for or against copyleft. But there was never a difference between "FOSS" and "FLOSS" in meaning.
Aspie96 / Valentino Giudice
npub13m…y8hs2
2026-01-14 00:03:12 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…48hd
Author Public Key
npub13mjzjryckg9jnxgn3vez73nw5gx82cy0269t2083zjftlxewsjwqny8hs2Seen on
wss://nos.lolPublished at
2026-01-14 00:03:12 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "5c31dabc6dc6fe9041bc1c7e42f61b4e4bae51b95f3f81d48ad279f97c691455",
"pubkey": "8ee4290c98b20b2999138b322f466ea20c75608f568ab53cf11492bf9b2e849c",
"created_at": 1768348992,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"eb67348e129f97fb83f6205764342d614b43d3d440fb182a1e0f0410dac36092"
],
[
"e",
"f8deffd40ee5dc69587785d2955f8ae66ea4138f495c7da82ff250c4a0706ca3",
"",
"root",
"eb67348e129f97fb83f6205764342d614b43d3d440fb182a1e0f0410dac36092"
],
[
"r",
"https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license"
]
],
"content": "\u003e I'd have gladly chosen it, except that it doesn't explicitly cover patents. \n\nIt does: https://opensource.com/article/18/3/patent-grant-mit-license\n\n\u003e If this is part of the difference between FOSS and this new term \"FLOSS\",\n\nIt's not.\nThere is absolutely no difference in meaning whatsoever, none at all.\n\nThe \"F\" in both is for \"free\" as in \"free software\". The \"L\" in the second is simply to *clarify* that the F means \"libre\", not \"free of charge\". It's the case either way, the L is just supposed to clarify it.\n\nNon-copyleft permissive licenses and copyleft licenses all qualify as \"FOSS\", \"FLOSS\", \"free software\" and \"open source\" licenses.\n\nThe MIT license is a FOSS license and a FLOSS license. The GPL is a FOSS license and a FLOSS license.\n\nThis isn't, of course, to say copyleft and permissive licenses are the same. They are not, that's why we have the word \"copyleft\" to describe the difference.\n\nIf you prefer non-copyleft licenses for your software, that's totally fine, of course. I'm not trying to argue for or against copyleft. But there was never a difference between \"FOSS\" and \"FLOSS\" in meaning.",
"sig": "7aeded8a4ffbb14c2f13ebd07f4dea308ea33da1607bfff59f7dcd51d623b6253bdd53d5bfbb1391f45d05cd8fa0903f897e007329b02fc55ce12c040fec306b"
}