• jaybone@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Isn’t it usually the opposite, gratis (because if it’s open source, you could just build it yourself, unless there’s a proprietary build env or hosted env) but not necessarily libre (because of the license?)

    So wouldn’t gratis normally be the superset of libre.

    Then there’s a set of gratis but not open source… someone should do a venn diagram.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I could potentially just say it costs money to use this software, but allow you to build it yourself if you don’t want to

      It’s called Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in case you were wondering

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Okay, I’d have to think of a more pure example, but you get the idea. Downloads and support not free, but compile it yourself if you want

          • SparroHawc@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Oh, there’s plenty of examples on mobile app stores. Since it costs to get your app on it, there’s a natural barrier to entry for FOSS - so the people who do put it up sometimes charge for it despite the source being readily available.