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

[Graham Ashton]

On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 13:28, Steve Holden wrote:
> "Brad Bollenbach" <bbollenbach at shaw.ca> wrote ...
> >
> > This doesn't actually make sense. To call software "Open Source" is to
> > acknowledge it as being distributed under a license that is defined as
> > compatible with what Richard Stallman calls "Free Software". 

This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but the above is
incorrect. Stallman didn't coin the term "Open Source", the OSI
(www.opensource.org) did. IIRC, Stallman doesn't agree with the term
Open Source, as it can dilute the "free as in speech" aspect of GPL
compatible licenses, which the FSF stands for. It's all explained
here....

  http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

> > So you don't have the "choice" of licensing Open Source software. It got 
> > to be called "Open Source" *because* of the license you've already
> > chosen for it.

So you're saying that you can't license *your own* software to different
people under different agreements, if you so choose?

> So the code I have put in the public domain isn't open source? That's
> interesting.

Yes, it is (but I suspect you knew that). See the venn diagram on:

  http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html

-- 
Graham Ashton