UnitedLinux and "open source"

[David Johnson]

On Friday 14 June 2002 03:14 pm, Andy Tai wrote:
> "Free software" means a well defined set of software.

"Free Software" refers to complex concept. As such, no single one or two 
syllable adjective, in any language, is sufficient to define it. But humans, 
being what they are, will conceptualize this class of software differently. 
This is not a radical idea. Even a simple word like "democracy" will be 
conceptualized differently by a Canadian than by a Laotian.

Thus, the FSF has formulated a definition to meet it's conceptualization of 
this class of software. The OSI has another. But they are both referring to 
the same thing. Neither one is accurate. Neither one should have a monopoly 
on its definition. And neither one should feel they have the moral 
superiority to declare the other heretical.

> Whatever you define is not relevant, if it is not
> compatible with the well accepted meanings of the
> community.

The community always defines the language. But be aware that the community is 
always REDEFINING the language. It's a dangerous trap to fall into to assert 
that the community is right, because they WILL change their minds tomorrow.

> Software libre, software livre, Tzi4-Yu2
> Ran3-Ti3, etc., all are names for the same thing in
> different languages of the world.  The fact that you
> do not speak Spanish, etc., is not a valid
> justification for attacks on the term "Free (libre)
> software" or the refusal to use it

I am not aware of anyone attacking a Spaniard's use of the term "libre" in 
reference to software while speaking Spanish. To the contrary, it is the most 
appropriate word to use in that language. But when you are speaking in 
English, then you should use the appropriate English word. And that word is 
not "libre", because there is no English word "libre".

> In fact, the English-speaking population should be
> responsible for adapting a word into the language if
> no sufficient words exist at the present.

Responsible? Responsible! On what moral basis is the collective English 
speaking community responsible to your desires?

But the point is moot we don't have to adapt a new word. We already have one 
in English that works quite well. Two in fact. One is "free". The other is 
"open". And it seems that the accepted word as chosen by the community of 
developers as a whole is "open", particularly when combined with the term 
"source software."

I've thought on this issue for a few years now, and have come to the 
conclusion that both "free" and "open" are appropriate English words to use 
in reference to this class of software. The difference comes in what you want 
to emphasize. 

Compare "free market" versus "open market". Both essentially refer to the same 
thing. The former emphasizes the lack of restriction while the latter 
emphasizes wide participation. Think about the differences between "free 
forum" and "open forum".

In short, "free" is the best adjective to use in reference GNU's freedom 0 
(usage) and 2 (distribution), while "open" is best to use in reference to 
freedom 1 (adaptation) and 3 (modification).

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
pgp public key on website
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3