Re: OS questions draft, III

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

In message <35E69B62.4C3467CB@csrlink.net>, dloss@csrlink.net writes:
>Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> >Is the availability of freely modifiable and
>> >distributable source code for educational software important to you?
>> 
>> Doug: asking about
>> 1) availability of source code
>> 2) price of said source code
>> 3) permission to modify it
>> 4) permission to distribute it
>> 
>> is more than one question can handle. Are 2 and 3 particularly important
>> to you, or shall we just go with
>> * Availability of source code for educational software applications
>
>Well, I was just trying to get the concept behind open source software
>down to a few generally understood terms that would fit into the
>question.  The simpler question would be fine I think, especially if
>there's a short preface to the questionnaire that explains the terms
>used later, something like, "In this questionnaire, the phrase
>'availability of source code' means the availability of the initial
>version of a program in humanly understandable form, along with the
>permission to modify the program and to distribute those modifications
>so long as such modified programs also include the modified source code
>under these terms."  That probably sounds too lawyerly, but I think a
>definition of terms so that everyone is answering the same questions is
>probably a good idea.

Actually, I'm trying to use as many intuitive terms as possible -- I
was actually thinking that 'availability of source code' meant simply
that you could get it through some means. It didn't imply any of the
other free software additions that we tend to use with source code that
we get.

Hm. It's true, though, that the source code for WinNT is "available" --
all you need is the willingness to sign some NDAs and other forms, a lot
of money, and a largish corporation. So there is a limit to that definition.

But my point is that I don't want to define 'available' to include all four
of the above questions. I wanted to only ask one of them. This would
simplify the question and allow us to actually be able to interpret an
answer.

I guess the counter argument is "Well, what about people who think that
available source also means the freedoms to modify and redistribute it?
They'll be throwing off the interpretation in the other direction."

Argh. I shall sleep on it, and hope I come up with a good answer. :)

--Roger