[OT] What is Open Source? (was Re: ANN: Twisted 0.16.0...)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Huaiyu" == Huaiyu Zhu <huaiyu at gauss.almadan.ibm.com> writes:

    Huaiyu> So RMS says using "open source" to mean "free" is not what
    Huaiyu> FSF prefers, even though many people use it that way.  It
    Huaiyu> is definitely not what OSI prefers, either.  Why use it
    Huaiyu> that way?

    Huaiyu> Using two terms to mean the same concept when we do have
    Huaiyu> two distinct concepts to name leaves us one term short.

But we only have one concept.  What we have two of is _movements_.

Which term to use depends on which movement you want to imply
membership in.  When I advocate Linux, I talk about _free software_,
because software should be free (for many reasons), and because it
encourages community.  When I advocate bazaar development styles, I
usually talk about _open source software_, because I'm usually talking
to people who have a fiduciary responsibility to owners, and have to
justify "giving away the store" on the basis of return on equity.

    Huaiyu> What name do you propose for the broader concept of "open
    Huaiyu> source" as defined by OSI?

Either "open source" or "free" will do, because the concepts are the
same.

When talking about semi-free approaches, in which _some_ rights are
granted, I use "proprietary" when I dislike the approach or the
copyright holder (qmail), and "source available" or "semi-free" when I
like the approach or copyright holder (Aladdin Ghostscript).<wink>
Sometimes I use "published source" for licenses like AFPL.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
              Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.