[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Definition of Open Source [was Re: pine: UW permission to distribute]



On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 10:39 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> > However, the permission granted by UW to you does not suffice to satisfy
> > the (what I believe to be the) general definition of open source
> > software, which means the right to redistribute with any modification.
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion is that opensource implies only that 
> you have access to the source and rights to with it (mostly) as you 
> like, which doesn't necessarily imply any sort of binary redistribution 
> right.

Your opinion is irrelevant. That's not the definition accepted by the
open source movement. You can go create and promote your own, or work
with OSI to change it, or just accept it.

Actually, the kind of opinions like yours are one of the reasons I prefer
to speak about Free Software (Software Livre in Portuguese):

    "Free Software" is easier to understand
       Although some people say that using the term "free" creates
       ambiguity, many languages have separate terms referring to
       freedom and price. In these languages, the term "free" is not
       ambiguous. It may be in others, including English, but in those
       misunderstandings can easily be avoided by pointing out that free
       refers to freedom, not price.

       The terminology "Open Source" refers to having access to the
       source code. But access to the source code is only a precondition
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       for two of the four freedoms that define Free Software. Many
                                                               ^^^^
       people do not understand that access to the source code alone is
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       not enough. "Free Software" avoids catering to this relatively
       ^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       common misunderstanding.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And I tend to think it is even more common in foreign languages, where
saying open source immediately lets people think of access to source
code only (at least this is my experience with Portuguese) and Free
(Livre) is undoubtedly a member of the word family Liberdade.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]