Of course, these are two different things. But what do you mean they are not compatible? That is not true.
Just not compatible because FSF is more Libre and Estricto that the trash OSI.
Tambien la FSF defiende mejor al usuario final y novato que la OSI.
Yes - what is it?
I think youād have better luck getting answers if you went to Tor Project itself Tor forums and be as specific with your question there. Tor Project Forums or https://forum.torproject.net/.
Good luck
~s
You can use DeepL if you wanted otherās to understand.
The repository also contains nonfree addons. That is happen because free software and open source at same time, this 2 things can not be together, because conflicts.
If you mean Mozillaās addons repository, then linking to a repo does not violate any of the FSFās 4 rules of free software: https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/#freedoms
I think you should learn more about free software and open source before saying such starkly false things.
4 Likes
I think you are both right because the admin of a device itself have the possibility to use software or to follow her or his brain to support ethic aspects.
carlosgonz just mention some plugins. And yes there are some plugins possible that match the OSI and the FSF standards if she or he user, did NOT use them. Because some FSF Rules are about a non allowed usage of software or code if you transport or feed a bad thing with it. Like Apps who grep information to train an A.I. for your own unwantedly future.
An extreme example was about the exclude (if i am remind correctly), the legal possibility to build killing drones for the Battlefield with Linux and Gnu Software.
1 Like
It is a shame that you do not catch the problems between Opensource and FreeSoftware. In fact if both are same so why exists both.? That is why exist too much fragmentations everywhere in gnu+lnx. Some peoples hates this fragmentations then moved to non gnu+lnx oses.
They are (arguably) not the same. But they can apply at the same time.
Wearing glasses and wearing a hat is not the same. Does that mean that they are incompatible?
3 Likes
dcz is correct. Donāt blame her for your lack of understanding. There is a difference between OSS, Free Software, and Copyleft Software. You are the one who is confused and you are confusing āCopyleftā with āFreeā. The FSF has made it clear that Tor is Free Software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html and they promote the Tor project ( https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2020/fall/how-tor-improves-usability-without-compromising-user-privacy ).
And donāt confuse people with the term ācompatibleā. Itās a technical issue and not even all lawyers agree about some issues (e.g. whether the CDDL license of ZFS is incompatible with the GPLv2). For an example of the technicality, the GPLv2-only license (e.g. the Linux kernel is GPLv2only) is incompatible with the GPLv3 even though they are both Copyleft and Free licenses ( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html where it says: āPlease note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well.ā).
1 Like
Why do you get into what you donāt care about? The discussion is not with you, or at least I donāt agree to discuss anything with you. Dont come to teach me because u will NOT.
I not newbie in OSI and FSF things, for some deep techniques reason i say that both are incompatibles, i know some licenses between OSI and FSF will OK, but thats making fakes GNUs systems, like Pure OS, i moved to Trisquel already and i will stop investing my time in this opensource forum/peoples. Next week i will be a RMS conferences. 
-
I care and know a great deal about software licenses. How dare you accuse me of ānot caringā. Pretty much the only thing I applaud Purism for is that they are following their promises in regard to upstreaming (which is harder than it sounds) and licenses.
-
The discussion is public. If you donāt want to see my input and wish to remain uninformed then block me. Others will still be able to see and decide for themselves whether Iām contributing to the discussion.
Iāve been using Linux since 1994 and emacs since 1987-88. Iāve contributed to many FOSS projects and even manage 2-3 of my own.
At this point I think everyone can read the links I gave and will understand that dcz was absolutely correct and that you are simply āvirtue signalingā ( I hate borrowing a phrase from those I disagree with politically, but when it fits, it fits).
The fact is that the Tor Project is 3-clause BSD (a.k.a. āModified BSDā) ( https://github.com/torproject/tor/blob/main/LICENSE ) and the FSF says that this license if Free ( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html says āThis is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.ā ). There are add-ons with other licenses. You will see that the FSF agrees that those are Free too.
IMO, if the FSF says they are Free, they are Free.
Virtue signaling again? Have fun and, IMO, you should stop taking yourself so seriously.
If you dare, ask RMS whether he thinks the Tor Project is Free. I already know the answer.
1 Like
Seems you are really confused, because one software can be truly Free Software then next day will be fake free software, exemple Tor browser, Libreboot, Debian, etc,etc. To me opensource licenses are MIT or MPL, but GPL licenses are free software not opensources.
Letās have a look at: https://opensource.org/licenses/ :
Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition ā in brief, they allow software to be freely used, modified, and shared. To be approved by the Open Source Initiative (also known as the OSI) a license must go through the Open Source Initiativeās license review process.
Listed licenses approved to comply to the Open Source definition include:
1 Like
So do you mean that GPL is opensh!t?
GPL is both Free and Open Source.
1 Like
You are complete wrong.
GPL is free software and could be opensource for non free software user.
I posted a link to the OSI page to proof that GPL is Open Source.
Could you also proof what you are stating? You are wrong.
1 Like
opensh!t just renamed all open licenses to opensource, but GPL it formally Free Software.