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

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Huaiyu" == Huaiyu Zhu <hzhu at mars.localdomain> writes:

    Huaiyu> Well, what you wrote does not help in any way to clarify
    Huaiyu> the situation, except to make it clear that you have a big
    Huaiyu> issue with GPL.

I have no issue with the GPL, because the GPL only affects people who
chose to use GPLed code in their projects.  It's a wonderful behavior-
modification tool; it often causes people to free software they would
otherwise keep proprietary.  Most of my development effort is spent on
XEmacs, which is GPL through and through.  The GPL is certainly does
not affect my decisions about what existing projects to contribute to.

I do have issues with some GPL advocates, because their arguments
amount to claiming that nobody should have property rights in his own
code.  (rms says this explicitly, but very few are so courageous as
he.)  And I have issues with many other GPL advocates, because _their_
arguments amount to claiming they have property rights in other
people's code.  But that's a different thread.

    Huaiyu> How come they are not equal if they are also the same?

I can only suggest that you read what the protagonists say on their
own web sites.  FWIW, I find the OSI pages to be more accurate, but
unnecessarily insulting (and quite sparse, perhaps a veiled insult?)
The GNU site often substitutes rhetorical tricks for substance, but
does its best to give the OSI position a fair reading.

http://www.opensource.org/
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

Perhaps what you're looking for is Joe Barr's think piece "Live and
let license" (http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/).
This seems to mirror many of your concerns, and the differences you
have with people who have responded in this thread.  However, I doubt
you'll find any "open source" activist who agrees with him,
particularly his conclusion #1.

The main problem is that Barr writes about "open source": "Think of
source code that is widely available. Source code that can be both
viewed and changed by just about anyone who wants to bother." and then
continues as if this has no relation to licensing.  How can it not?
Barr doesn't even try to answer that, thus sowing more seeds of
confusion than he resolves.


-- 
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.