cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arjé Cahn <A...@hippo.nl>
Subject RE: [OT] What is OSS [was: Cocoon Stammtisch]
Date Tue, 20 May 2003 10:40:17 GMT
I had a little discussion over here and we came to this conclusion:

- If the codebase is not freely available (according to the 10 OSI rules), then it's not open
source (== not OSI Open Source).
- What you pay for should be the *support on* the open source software. This includes documentation,
tools, updates, etcetera. It's like taking an insurance. You can't pay for the Open Source
Software itself (that wouldn't make sense), but you pay for the support and security that
someone will keep it running for you.

Of course, this is our opinion. Discussion would be appreciated.

Arje

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Savory [mailto:andrew@luminas.co.uk]
> Posted At: 20 May 2003 10:28
> Posted To: Cocoon Dev List
> Conversation: [OT] What is OSS [was: Cocoon Stammtisch]
> Subject: RE: [OT] What is OSS [was: Cocoon Stammtisch]
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 20 May 2003, Matthew Langham wrote:
> 
> > > WRONG! IT IS NOT! Open Source != "I get the source code 
> to look at".
> > >
> > > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
> > >
> >
> > Of course you are right in that is how OS is defined "by 
> the book". I was
> > only implying that the actual term is often used very 
> differently (and
> > wrongly)!
> 
> This confusion is why the die hard advocates say "don't say 
> Open Source
> say OSI Open Source", since various marketing organisations 
> co-opted the
> term "Open Source" and it can't be trademarked properly to protect it.
> 
> > > The term "open source" is used flexibly only by those who 
> don't know
> > > about it, but OSI does not approve licenses 'flexibly' at all.
> >
> > Yes OSI says this - correct. I was not implying 
> differently. In particular I
> > was not implying that the mentioned use of "open source" 
> conformed to
> > anything.
> 
> Better yet is the definition "Free Software", and the Free Software
> Foundation definition at 4 points is far more readable than the OSI
> definition at 10 (!). Given that most definitions are derived 
> from the FSF
> one, it's a good starting place.
> 
> The term Free Software refers to four kinds of freedom, for 
> the users of a
> program:
> 
> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
> 
> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to 
> your needs.
> Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> 
> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour.
> 
> * The freedom to improve the program, and release your 
> improvements to the
> public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the 
> source code is
> a precondition for this.
> 
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Savory                                Email: 
> andrew@luminas.co.uk
> Managing Director                              Tel:  +44 
> (0)870 741 6658
> Luminas Internet Applications                  Fax:  +44 
> (0)700 598 1135
> This is not an official statement or order.    Web:    
www.luminas.co.uk

Mime
View raw message