Open Source Debate (split from MOS announcement)

[Brynet-Inc]

(Edit by AJ: split from original topic at http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24155)

I can't wait until it's open source, looks more like free software to me.

[prajwal]

Brynet-Inc: the sourceforge link should help to get source code of mosland project. Didn't that work?

Miker00lz: no I haven't uploaded a working img of latest build, will do that sometime soon

Best Regards,
- Prajwala

[davidv1992]

Mosman, opinions differ around here whether the GPL can be called open source, some find it too restrictive. Brynet-inc if memory serves is one of those some.

[miker00lz]

imo, you can see the source and make changes if desired therefore it's open source. i hate this BS semantics argument over the term.

[JAAman]

yes, GPL is open source... since the term 'open source' means 'this product has been approved by OSI'...

imo, you can see the source and make changes if desired therefore it's open source. i hate this BS semantics argument over the term.

no, that was the definition of open source before OSI came to exist...

its definitely not "BS semantics" -- it is illegal to use the term "open source" without permission from the OSI

[gerryg400]

its definitely not "BS semantics" -- it is illegal to use the term "open source" without permission from the OSI

Which law makes it illegal ?

[TylerH]

its definitely not "BS semantics" -- it is illegal to use the term "open source" without permission from the OSI

Which law makes it illegal ?

No law in the US. The attempt to have it registered as a trademark in the US was denied. I don't know about other countries.

[NickJohnson]

The OSI trying to trademark "open source", a term used all over the place in software, seems kind of ironic...

I personally thought the argument wasn't about whether the GPL was open source (it clearly fits the concept: you can see the source, and even modify it) but instead was whether the GPL was good or bad. In my mind, "free software" is a subset of "open source". The issue is that many people here think that "open source" minus "free software" is the set of good licenses. Unfortunately, that set has no convenient name, so people will casually refer to it as "open source", trying to imply not "free software" by not calling it that.

[Solar]

Free software - free as in beer, not as in speech. You can use it, but may not have access to sources.

Open source - free as in speech, not necessarily as in beer. You can see and modify sources, but also sell it with the services, license permitting.

Not quite, and the problem is that various factions are using various, sometimes contradicting, terms.

The layman's idea of "free software" is that you don't have to pay for it. That kind of software was, back in the 80ies and 90ies, called "Freeware". Freeware could come with sources included, but that was not the rule.

The layman's idea of "open source" is that you have access to source code; no more, no less. Again, back in the 80ies and 90ies, it was not uncommon for software titles to come with sources included (so you could check their security, make patches for personal use etc.), but forbidding the distribution of such modified versions of the software, forbidding the use in certain fields of endeavor, etc.

Then Stallman came up with GNU and the FSF, essentially heralding the idea that software is only "free" if you are allowed to modify the sources, redistribute modified versions, and forking a competing project from it; he somewhat arrogantly calls this "free as in free speech". That wouldn't be that bad a standpoint if he (and his followers) didn't insist on vilifying everyone who didn't follow this, quote, "ethical imperative"; as if the creator of a work doesn't have every right in the world to determine how and by whom it may be used.

The Open Source Initiative, then, tried (somewhat successfully) to establish some kind of "standard" for "OSI-approved open source", which doesn't necessarily agree with the idea of "free" heralded by the FSF on one side, and doesn't encompass all licenses which make source code available on the other.

So we have:

• layman's "free" software ("free as in free beer"), as opposed to
• FSF "free" software ("free as in free speech", which strikes me as somewhat hypocritical as it takes away rights from the developer); and
• layman's "open source" software ("our security department evaluated this software to be free of trojans and thus safe for using on our mission-critical servers"), as opposed to
• OSI-approved "open source" software ("you may not forbid this software to be used in weapons research").

[JAAman]

i was unaware (and honestly quite surprised) that their trademark was rejected... they still claim it on their website (though not on the web pages themselves) as shown by this google search result:

Mission | Open Source Initiative
http://www.opensource.org/ - CachedSimilar
Dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source trademark for the good of the community. Includes a definition of 'Open Source', and a list of approved ...

[M-Saunders]

I interviewed RMS a few months ago, and he pretty much agreed that using "free" to describe his vision of software has caused difficulties, and "libre" might've been the better choice from the start.

Still, if we had a line of code written for every line of internet argument about free vs open vs libre, we'd have a lot of good stuff now

M

[Owen]

The logo is trademarked.

[SDS]

i was unaware (and honestly quite surprised) that their trademark was rejected... they still claim it on their website (though not on the web pages themselves) as shown by this google search result:

It is quite poor that they make such a claim, although I could only find references to the "Open Source Initiative" being trademarked on their website - which seems somewhat reasonable.

A trademark claim by them for the term "Open Source" would be bound to fail, as the term was being legitimately used in the context of software by a significant number of people (even if meaning subtly different things) long before the existence of OSI.

Free software - free as in beer, not as in speech. You can use it, but may not have access to sources.

Open source - free as in speech, not necessarily as in beer. You can see and modify sources, but also sell it with the services, license permitting.

I think this is a case of oversimplification to the point of losing information. There are many people who would say the point of "Free software" would be "free as in speech", and that the meaning of "Open Source" is just poorly defined. Free software certainly dooes not always meen "free as in beer".

[JAAman]

It is quite poor that they make such a claim, although I could only find references to the "Open Source Initiative" being trademarked on their website - which seems somewhat reasonable.

A trademark claim by them for the term "Open Source" would be bound to fail, as the term was being legitimately used in the context of software by a significant number of people (even if meaning subtly different things) long before the existence of OSI.

the reason you dont find them claiming that trademark on the website anymore is because they tried to sue people for using the term without permission and the courts ruled against them (apparently) -- however, they did make that claim in the past, and they did try to enforce it with lawsuits (trademarks are only tested during lawsuits... there is no registration required to use trademarks, and thus they cannot be tested until they are called into question)

thing is, they (and their supporters) definitely do believe that they have the right to do it, and that the courts were wrong to deny them...

[Chandra]

For me, free software is everything I don't have to pay for and open source is everything I can comprehend. I don't care what the rest of the world has to say.

Cheers!