[OT] What is Open Source? (was Re: ANN: Twisted 0.16.0...)

[Brad Bollenbach]

In article <mailman.1018626392.16328.python-list at python.org>, Graham Ashton 
wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 13:28, Steve Holden wrote:
>> "Brad Bollenbach" <bbollenbach at shaw.ca> wrote ...
>> >
>> > This doesn't actually make sense. To call software "Open Source" is to
>> > acknowledge it as being distributed under a license that is defined as
>> > compatible with what Richard Stallman calls "Free Software". 
> 
> This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but the above is
> incorrect. Stallman didn't coin the term "Open Source", the OSI
> (www.opensource.org) did. IIRC, Stallman doesn't agree with the term
> Open Source, as it can dilute the "free as in speech" aspect of GPL
> compatible licenses, which the FSF stands for. It's all explained
> here....

This is a semantic debate. I know that Stallman chose the term "Free
Software" because he felt it was the best (and most concise) way to
express what he was thinking of.

As it turns out, *lots* of hackers talk about "Open Source" when they
often mean exactly the same thing as what Stallman calls "Free
Software". From the context of this discussion, I gathered the same
interchange is going on here.

>> > So you don't have the "choice" of licensing Open Source software. It got 
>> > to be called "Open Source" *because* of the license you've already
>> > chosen for it.
> 
> So you're saying that you can't license *your own* software to different
> people under different agreements, if you so choose?

Hmmm? Who said that?

You misread, or misunderstood (or both) what I said. It's not "optional"
to license Open Source/Free Software. It got to be *called* Open
Source/Free _because_ of the license you chose for it.

If you have a piece of software with no license whatsoever attached to
it, it's not proprietary, open source/free, shareware, "freeware", or
whatever. It's nothing more than a piece of software with your copyright
on it. You've not made any allowances, nor any limitations on the usage
of it. (However, the implicit copyright you get from creating an
original work does put some limitations on what people can legally do
without your permission).

If you attach the GPL, it's now "Free Software".

If you attach the MS-Style EULA, it's now "Proprietary Software".

If you attached an MS-Style license, that permits some kind of
evaluation period at no charge, it's now "shareware".

And so on.

In other words to think: 

"Hmmmm...should I license my Free Software (or Open Source, if that's 
the terminology you're using to refer to what Stallman calls "Free 
Software")?"

is already redundant because you had to have already attached a Free
Software compatible license to *call it free software* to begin with.


--
Brad