Anthony snac Actor feed

@Robotistry@fediscience.org To my thinking LOSS is disjoint from FOSS. Perha

Note 2026-06-11T15:52:25+00:00 View original ->

@Robotistry@fediscience.org To my thinking LOSS is disjoint from FOSS. Perhaps they share a point or two if I'm feeling generous. But LOSS is not a subset of FOSS in what I consider to be reasonable interpretations of F (YMMV obviously). Tim O'Reilly style OSS might be called LOSS, but that would be a loss for FOSS.

MOSS, on the other hand, can cover all given the right conditions.

@jens@social.finkhaeuser.de @onepict@chaos.social

Comments

hyc@mastodon.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
@abucci @Robotistry @jens @onepict this all sounds like a rehash of how we got to "FLOSS" in the first place.
There is Free Software (as in freedom). It's expressed in copyleft, and obligates its users to propagate its freedoms.
There is "open source software" expressed in BSD/MIT style licenses that allow proprietary entities to take whatever they want from the commons and never give anything back. That's OSS, your "LOSS" is just a redundant expression of the same.
Robotistry@fediscience.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
@abucci @jens @onepict I seem to be completely failing at my intent of contributing a little bit of unserious fun to your entertaining thread.
I understood your original post to be pointing out that under current LLM-centric conditions, free-as-in-speech projects have been conflated with or co-opted into free-as-in-beer projects while continuing to be described as FOSS. It seemed a shame to me that you had a nice acronym for the less desirable libertarian side, but there was no equally silly/nice acronym for what you described as the contrasting "communitarian project", so I thought I would contribute one.