Re: [seul-edu] Software Freedom Season

[Scott Wheeler <wheeler@kde.org>]

First, sorry, the last post was a bit inflamatory.  I'll try to calm down a           
bit for this one.  Also, this will be my last "on list" post for this thread.           
           
Quoting Richard Smedley <richard.smedley@futurenet.co.uk>:            
            
> > but the            
> > terms of use are (almost always) identical.             
>             
> No            
            
Most "Open Source" projects use a combination of the GPL/LGPL, followed by         
BSD, MIT, Mozilla, Artistic, QPL, etc. -- all of which are Free Software        
licenses (as stated by the FSF, though not all of the are "GPL" compatible).         
These are the most common license in the "Open Source" world.  There are some        
cases where Open Source software may not be "Free Software", but these cases        
are obscure.       
       
Your initial assertion is that Open Source is not Free Software.  A more       
correct statement would have been "There exists a very small minority of Open       
Source software that is not Free Software."       
       
> All interactions are beneficial - this is a biological principle.            
> But this doesn't really add anything.            
       
Well, I don't agree that *all* interaction is beneficial to *all* parties,       
but, that's irrelevant.        
             
> > > However Open Source merely means that one has access to            
> > > the source - it suggests no freedoms of use. This is why            
> > > a number of large suppliers of software (such as Microsoft)            
> > > have been happy to join the 'open source movement', and            
> > > make available some of their code :-/            
> > > Naturally freedom is not mentioned  :-(            
> >             
> > Before spreading falsehoods,            
>             
> Where I come from that's a rather serious accusation,            
> but I'll allow for cultural differences :^/            
       
Sorry, yes, again, I was overly inflamatory.  I do still believe that your      
statement was false though.  :-)       
             
> > please spend a few seconds to check this stuff            
> > out.  It took me 10 seconds to prove you wrong here:            
> >             
> > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php            
>             
> I am familiar with the OSD - are you familiar             
> with its history? It came about in response to             
> all the non-Free software marketed as 'open source'.            
>             
> Free Software is unambiguous - it is about freedom.            
> Open source implies access to the source code -            
> definitions were tagged on to cover redistribution and            
> derived works as various large companies took advantage            
> of community good will and post-Netscape 'Open Source'            
> hype to market their products as part of a larger            
> movement upon which they were freeloading :-(            
      
I believe, and I think the rhetoric of the OSI reinforces this, that there are      
some fundamental things which must exist for software to be "Open Source" and      
these are overwhelmingly the same as the qualifications for "Free Software".     
I don't believe that Open Source means "you have access to the source".  Just   
like the difference between free and "Free" theres a similar dichotomy between   
open and "Open"...   
      
> Yes - they are explicitly drawing a parallel - and            
> they can do so because of the ambiguity created by            
> the term 'Open Source'            
     
Sure.  But that does not make them part of the Open Source community.  The     
semantics are wholey a separate issue.       
     
Microsoft does use some BSD licensed software in it's applications, but that     
doesn't mean it embraces Open Source.  In fact, that code is just as much Free     
Software as it is Open Source, since "copyleft" is not a requirement for being     
"Free Software".      
             
> Is this intended to be a put-down? Excuse me            
> if I don't respond in kind ;-)            
     
No, just merely an observation and something that I've never really    
understood.  I've seen the "Free" != "Open Source"; "This or that sucks!" come    
up time and again, but I've never understood why this almost always happens (I    
don't know you or your development experience or lack thereof, so this wasn't    
specifically directed at you.), by people that aren't changing the software   
and don't intend to change the software, etc.  I guess there's still an   
esoteric desire for a freedom that will never be exercised, but it's always   
seemed a bit odd.  Really, that's just something that's puzzled me for a while   
and was waiting for the next rant for a chance to come out.  ;-)   
             
> OK, this is a long way off-topic. There are answers            
> to your questions, but I'm not going to give them            
> here.            
    
:-)    
            
> Well /excuse me/ for having a day job ;-P            
    
Me too, my title is "Open Source Developer".  :-)    
             
> You certainly seem to be ;-P            
   
Yeah, I think I'm set in the rant department for a few weeks...  :-)  
   
> Can we get back on topic to the excellent idea for a            
> Software Freedom Day?            
   
Sure.  I'll shut up now (as I said at the beginning).  Besides, I need some 
lunch.  :-) 
   
Cheers,   
   
-Scott