Fossify Documents
Private offline document reader and organizer supporting PDFs, DOCX, TXT, Markdown, CSV, TSV, and HTML files, enabling editing, formatting, folder browsing, sorting, favorites, and recent file tracking. No ads or tracking, with customizable themes and layouts.
Cost / License
- Free
- Open Source (GPL-3.0)
Application typeApplication types
Platforms
- Android
- Android Tablet
- OpenAPK
- F-Droid
Features
Fossify Documents News & Activities
Recent activities
- canermeow liked Fossify Documents
- tannmarku liked Fossify Documents
- c17s5qhu updated Fossify Documents
PNguyen17 added Fossify Documents as alternative to DiapoLab- SuperDog34 liked Fossify Documents
- akselaeration commented on Fossify Documents
They are mostly right, and it is worth conceding that.
In practice it is the same thing. Nearly every licence is approved by both camps - MIT, Apache, GPL, BSD. The code is the same, the projects are the same, the people overlap. Say "open source" about Linux and nobody misunderstands you.
The difference is not what you are permitted to do. It is why anyone thinks you should be permitted to do it.
The places where it actually bites:
Source that is visible but not free. Microsoft's Shared...
- alternativeto-dingo898 liked Fossify Documents
- ant_zmnt liked Fossify Documents
- Stimmenhotel liked Fossify Documents
- sentipulse liked Fossify Documents
Fossify Documents information
Developed by
Fossify Licensing
Open Source (GPL-3.0) and Free product.Alternatives
23 alternatives listedBadge
Get an embeddable badge for Fossify DocumentsSupported Languages
AlternativeTo Categories
Office & Productivity, DevelopmentGitHub repository
- 145 Stars
- 11 Forks
- 21 Open Issues
- Updated
Comments and Reviews
They are mostly right, and it is worth conceding that.
In practice it is the same thing. Nearly every licence is approved by both camps - MIT, Apache, GPL, BSD. The code is the same, the projects are the same, the people overlap. Say "open source" about Linux and nobody misunderstands you.
The difference is not what you are permitted to do. It is why anyone thinks you should be permitted to do it.
The places where it actually bites:
Source that is visible but not free. Microsoft's Shared Source let you read Windows code without modifying or redistributing it. Open in ordinary speech, neither open source nor free software in the technical sense.
Copyleft versus permissive. The GPL requires that modifications be shared too. MIT does not. Both are open source, but the free software camp sees the GPL as the one that actually protects the freedom, and MIT as the one that lets someone take the code and close it again.
And the one that matters right now: AI models. The whole distinction has become live again here. Llama is called open, but the licence carries usage restrictions and the training data is secret. Motif 3 is MIT, but ships without data or recipe. Apertus publishes the training data as well.
So when someone says "we use open models," it can mean three quite different things - and for a sovereignty argument, the gap between "you can download the weights" and "you could rebuild this yourself" is the entire point.
There the distinction is not academic. In ordinary conversation about software, you can grant them the point.
Is Fossify "open source" or "FOSS"?? Not the same... Is there really no control here, no check? Sporadically it is like this is burning house..
FOSS literally means "free open source software," so I am not sure what you mean by your comment.