Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

"Lefty (石鏡 )" <lefty shugendo org> writes:
>> "Open source" doesn't imply any reason or policy for rejecting
>> proprietary software...
> I'm afraid I really have to disagree here: "open source software" is
> software which is made available under a license which satisfies the Open
> Source Definition

The Open Source Definition gives criteria for categorising software as open
source or not, but it doesn't suggest why someone might avoid or replace
non-open-source software.

The categorisation (which, in practice, is pretty much identical to The Free
Software Definition which predates it) can be made use of by GNOME, but only
because GNOME already has a philosophy of what to do with software
categorised as non-free/non-open-source: reject it from the repositories.
This philosphy comes from GNOME itself and its roots in the free software
movement.  It doesn't and couldn't come from the Open Source Definition.

The last few mails in this thread suggest that people are happy with this
aspect of GNOME's philosophy.  So it's something worth maintaining.  How do
we ensure that newcomers see the philosophy and the reasons for avoiding or
rewriting non-free/non-open-source software?

Using the term "free software" helps because it leads people to make a
connection with a philosophy that answers exactly that question.  Other
helpful measures can include more prominently displaying the fact that GNOME
insists on freedom, and explanations of why software freedom is valuable.

Adding "open source" makes the goal somewhat harder because it will redirect
some attention from a definition+philosophy(FSD) to just a definition(OSD).
If this is done, then the helpful measures mentioned above become even more

Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54,

Please help build the software patents wiki:



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]