[OT] What is Open Source?

[Huaiyu Zhu]

Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
>Those discussing these things have long since published definitions,
>agreed to accept each others' definitions, _and they have also long
>since agreed that for the purposes of most discussions comparing the
>broad idea of open source with that of free software, "free software
>== open source software"_.  Huaiyu clearly found Tim Peters's
>contribution in that vein useful.  So his _question_, and the
>appropriate answer, were ambiguous.

Given various bits of information we have discovered, I think it is the OSI
"marketing message" that is in err.  (Not that we should have expected
differently from marketing.)  The FSF is quite accurate and honest in their
assessment of not only their own definitions, but other as well.

>Actually, I have to laugh at myself, because I was in fact wrong to
>assert that the sets of licenses/covered programs are the same, and
>Huaiyu led me to truth.  Believe me, I didn't plan that, but there is
>proof: I was seeking (despite being fairly sure I already had the
>answer) and I found.<wink>

It is very gracious of you to say that.  We are all seeking, in different
ways.  And I believe we all become a little wiser as result.

Huaiyu