Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 87308 invoked by uid 500); 20 May 2003 08:28:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 87275 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 08:28:44 -0000 Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (62.253.162.47) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 20 May 2003 08:28:44 -0000 Received: from oscar ([81.100.206.62]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.37 201-229-121-137-20020806) with ESMTP id <20030520082856.TQJH25105.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@oscar> for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 09:28:56 +0100 Received: from savs (helo=localhost) by oscar with local-esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19I2Ty-0004J0-00 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 09:28:26 +0100 Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:28:26 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Savory X-X-Sender: savs@oscar To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: RE: [OT] What is OSS [was: Cocoon Stammtisch] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Andrew Savory X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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