FLOSS Opinion

 See All Posts on FLOSS Opinion 

The Term FLOSS

My use of the term FLOSS can loosely refer to open source as people might generally think of it. Going in slightly deeper, it can loosely refer to the combination of FOSS software and OSS software, and all their licenses.

In the world of free and open software, terminology matters. If you want to learn about specific terminology, you can find a lot of information through the Free Software Foundation's website and other online sources. Some common terms around open software are FLOSS, FOSS, OSS, Copyleft, Copyright, Proprietary, Open, Closed, Free, and Libre.

Open Licensing Background

Generally open software developers might have increased acquaintance with around three to fifteen or so open licenses. But there are 40 or 100 or more that you can learn about. All it takes is an attorney to draw one up. These licenses can range in various degrees of openness, closedness, freedom and non-freedom. Licenses can stipulate on software compatibility with other licenses, and a myriad of other details like developer accreditation and profit options.

Briefly, the term FOSS (without the 'L') has practical meaning around licensing methods, but crucially, FOSS is the term that stands out as carrying the primary ethical and political significance among open software terms. There are far fewer FOSS licenses than general open licenses. What qualifies as a fully FOSS license may vary according to individual perspective, but there are official terms set out by the Free Software Foundation.

The primary contrasting term to FOSS is OSS, and OSS only carries practical implications for its own types of licensing, but without ethical and political significance.

The story of FOSS and OSS might be playfully described like this: 

You might be tempted to think that FOSS is a snob to OSS, and that treating the two like oil and water is petty. However more accurately, OSS has actually been a bully to FOSS. FOSS came out first, and set out a means to develop software ethically. Then OSS swooped in, and took the easy parts of the FOSS idea, leaving out the ethical bits. Then OSS confused people about the ethical reasons for open software. OSS now dominates the field - and well interpret it the way you want - kind of stole FOSS awareness and glory while FOSS takes the high road.

FLOSS is Both

Anyway despite the differences, the term FLOSS is one of convenience, born from the desire to create a purview of sorts for considering both FOSS and OSS licensing on a single plain of their practical characteristics. The term FLOSS clarifies a commonality between both FOSS and OSS when they share a politically and ethically neutral context. 

In other words, just because FOSS is largely ethical and political, it does not mean that it cannot also be discussed in a practical sense right alongside OSS. (Cute huh.)

My FLOSS Posts

In general this blog is not formal, and part of the benefit of that is not being tied to a particular expectation of a consistent theme.

In addition to topics separate from software entirely, I write both politically and apolitically about open software. So as a general reference, I use the term FLOSS to refer to that subset of blog posts.

Even if I were just writing persuasive writing about FOSS as a theme, it does not exist in a vacuum, and I would still incorporate OSS into the discussion either way.

What is it About FLOSS?

There's something about it. There are many people captivated and fascinated by free and open software beyond just the professional realm.

Like any hobby or passion, software development is not free in time, or intellectual capital. However, unlike most hobbies and creation tools, it caps out pretty quickly in terms of prerequisite and overhead costs.

Freedom to write software how you want means that you can bring so many different creations and visions into fruition unlike so many other tools and material building components.

Software does things, and it can be revised and re-written; re-created. Does a book report do things? Does a painting do things? How many times can you re-do, or re-work a toy model of an aircraft carrier? How many times can you mess up on carpentry when you have only chopped down 1 oak tree?

Software development is like fun puzzles, mixed with fun building toys like Legos, mixed with actual building tools like concrete, mixed with artistic expression, mixed with the potential for real-world accomplishment, and even making money. It's all that rolled into one, right at your fingertips like magic sorcery.

Not having freedom in writing software can feel quite dumb. It can feel this way if you realize the limitations on it have to be artificially imposed, or if you realize the deeper realities of hardware and software layers can be like attempting to lock down natural and physical laws of the Universe. These restrictions can seem quite funny, or even like an absurd and dastardly farce. I believe that many FLOSS enthusiasts probably sense similar absurdity, as to even procure an internal burden of proof onto the concept of the un-free.