Re: [License-discuss] FAQ suggestion
I have posted a slightly tweaked version of this (incorporating some of Rick and Richard's suggestions as well). Thanks again, Engel. Luis On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hello license-discuss, I would propose an additional paragraph to the FAQ, for the question What is free software and is it the same as open source? The text currently says: One of the tactical concerns most often cited by adopters of the term open source was the ambiguity of the English word free, which can refer either to freedom or to mere monetary price; this ambiguity was also given by the OSI founders as a reason to prefer the new term (see What Does `free' Mean, Anyway?, and similar language on the marketing for hackers page, both from the original 1998 web site). At this point in the text, I'd suggest to insert a little explanation on the ambiguity in the use of the term of open source as well. Quick draft... On the other hand, the term open applied to the source is sometimes used in the sense of merely provided or visible, but the open source definition sets the criteria for open source to software licenses that guarantee a set of perpetual and irrevocable rights to every recipient. The text should then probably skip furthermore, and continue... The FSF uses a shorter, four-point definition of software freedom when evaluating licenses, while the OSI uses a longer, ten-point definition. The two definitions lead to the same result in practice, but use superficially different language to get there. I hope it will help with a number of misunderstandings. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ suggestion
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:46:50 -0800 Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: Karl, Richard, anyone else: any thoughts on this? It seems a useful addition. I would suggest the following changes: Use initial caps for 'open source definition'. Change 'perpetual and irrevocable' to 'perpetual'. The draft entry ignores the fact that there are some licenses that have been approved by the OSI but considered nonconformant to the FSD by the FSD, but that may not be an important detail to emphasize here. - Richard On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: That seems like a reasonable addition to me, and addresses real, recent confusion. Karl and Richard are on planes today, and I would like to hear their thoughts before taking it live, though. Thanks, Engel! Luis On Nov 10, 2013 10:38 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hello license-discuss, I would propose an additional paragraph to the FAQ, for the question What is free software and is it the same as open source? The text currently says: One of the tactical concerns most often cited by adopters of the term open source was the ambiguity of the English word free, which can refer either to freedom or to mere monetary price; this ambiguity was also given by the OSI founders as a reason to prefer the new term (see What Does `free' Mean, Anyway?, and similar language on the marketing for hackers page, both from the original 1998 web site). At this point in the text, I'd suggest to insert a little explanation on the ambiguity in the use of the term of open source as well. Quick draft... On the other hand, the term open applied to the source is sometimes used in the sense of merely provided or visible, but the open source definition sets the criteria for open source to software licenses that guarantee a set of perpetual and irrevocable rights to every recipient. The text should then probably skip furthermore, and continue... The FSF uses a shorter, four-point definition of software freedom when evaluating licenses, while the OSI uses a longer, ten-point definition. The two definitions lead to the same result in practice, but use superficially different language to get there. I hope it will help with a number of misunderstandings. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ suggestion
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): Karl, Richard, anyone else: any thoughts on this? Just talking around the subject for a moment, there has in the past been a vague and informal concept of 'open' involving inspectable aka viewable source code aka source-available code, and also a much more specific 1980s and Sun Microsystems concept of 'open systems'. 'Open systems' was a marketing codephrase for *ix-based computing's advantages accruing from standardised programming interfaces, with an implied suggestion of more-interoperable hardware interfaces to peripherals, and encouragement of third-party software. The usual comparison was towards IBM-standard computing's much greater lock-in at various levels. None of this had anything to do with licensing, let alone articulating the right to fork, or the right to reuse for any purpose without additional fee. Engel says he wishes to add to the FAQ to address the ambiguity in the use of the term 'open source' as well. I appreciate his effort, but agree that ambiguity arises from the word 'open', but _not_ when used in the phrase 'open _source_'. Context is everything. People who say that the phrase 'open source' is ambiguous merely because people have often used the word 'open' to mean other things in the general context of software are missing the point that the specific phrase 'open _source_' has a quite specific meanin, established through overwhelming weight of usage since the 1998 OSI founding. Seems to me that Engel's commendable draft might be improved on in that area, so: The term open applied to software source code is sometimes used to imply source code being merely inspectable or visible or available, as in the phrases open computing and open systems that were adopted by proprietary Unix companies' marketing efforts in the 1980s. By contrast, OSI's term open source, as detailed in the Open Source Definition, specifically entails not mere inspection access but also conveying to recipients the perpetual and irrevocable right to fork covered code and use it freely without additional fee. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ suggestion
Karl, Richard, anyone else: any thoughts on this? On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: That seems like a reasonable addition to me, and addresses real, recent confusion. Karl and Richard are on planes today, and I would like to hear their thoughts before taking it live, though. Thanks, Engel! Luis On Nov 10, 2013 10:38 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hello license-discuss, I would propose an additional paragraph to the FAQ, for the question What is free software and is it the same as open source? The text currently says: One of the tactical concerns most often cited by adopters of the term open source was the ambiguity of the English word free, which can refer either to freedom or to mere monetary price; this ambiguity was also given by the OSI founders as a reason to prefer the new term (see What Does `free' Mean, Anyway?, and similar language on the marketing for hackers page, both from the original 1998 web site). At this point in the text, I'd suggest to insert a little explanation on the ambiguity in the use of the term of open source as well. Quick draft... On the other hand, the term open applied to the source is sometimes used in the sense of merely provided or visible, but the open source definition sets the criteria for open source to software licenses that guarantee a set of perpetual and irrevocable rights to every recipient. The text should then probably skip furthermore, and continue... The FSF uses a shorter, four-point definition of software freedom when evaluating licenses, while the OSI uses a longer, ten-point definition. The two definitions lead to the same result in practice, but use superficially different language to get there. I hope it will help with a number of misunderstandings. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ suggestion
That seems like a reasonable addition to me, and addresses real, recent confusion. Karl and Richard are on planes today, and I would like to hear their thoughts before taking it live, though. Thanks, Engel! Luis On Nov 10, 2013 10:38 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hello license-discuss, I would propose an additional paragraph to the FAQ, for the question What is free software and is it the same as open source? The text currently says: One of the tactical concerns most often cited by adopters of the term open source was the ambiguity of the English word free, which can refer either to freedom or to mere monetary price; this ambiguity was also given by the OSI founders as a reason to prefer the new term (see What Does `free' Mean, Anyway?, and similar language on the marketing for hackers page, both from the original 1998 web site). At this point in the text, I'd suggest to insert a little explanation on the ambiguity in the use of the term of open source as well. Quick draft... On the other hand, the term open applied to the source is sometimes used in the sense of merely provided or visible, but the open source definition sets the criteria for open source to software licenses that guarantee a set of perpetual and irrevocable rights to every recipient. The text should then probably skip furthermore, and continue... The FSF uses a shorter, four-point definition of software freedom when evaluating licenses, while the OSI uses a longer, ten-point definition. The two definitions lead to the same result in practice, but use superficially different language to get there. I hope it will help with a number of misunderstandings. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
