Simon,
I've never been called "a traditional OSI/OSD supporter" before! I suppose
that I am, though I wouldn't call my relationship to the principles
"dogmatic." My point to you was simply that these terminologies have very
specific, rich histories and exist in their current forms for particular
reasons—to express and assert certain sets of values and principles. In other
words, there is a historical and philosophical legacy behind:
- Free Software
- Open source
- Fair source
- Ethical source
- Source available
... and any other movement whose proponents prefer a unique name to signal
their difference/distinction from similar-but-different-in-very-important-ways
positions on the matter. Understanding these—and the history of discussion and
debate between them—is important for a definitional research project like yours.
If I come across as defensive—well, then I guess I am. I believe the
principles of open source are worth defending. I also respect folks who
advocate for fair source and ethical source and free software; we all have
critical and impassioned reasons for preferring the approaches we choose. As a
teacher and researcher I am less interested in locating the "correct" position
than in understanding the complexity and interrelationships of all these, to
understand "what's at stake" in each one, and in locating the precise points
of convergence/divergence between them.
Because I see you enjoy quotations, I will close with one of my favorites,
which resonates with me as I read and consider your responses:
"You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means."—Inigo
Montoya, *The Princess Bride*
Bryan
_______________________________________________
tos mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
TOS website: http://teachingopensource.org/
