Open Source vs opensource

[Chris Travers]

This may be wandering off-topic a little but maybe not.

On Nov 21, 2007 5:44 AM, Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi at gmail.com> wrote:

> We were discussing about his strong interpretation of "opensource".
> He's considering this word as "source code available" but with no relationship
> to licences and right to modify the code.
>
> Instead, I was under the impression that "Open Source", "opensource"
> and "open source"
> have the same clear meaning as stated by OSI.


These points are not necessarily in conflict.  "Open source" may
indeed be generic, but for the purpose of the OSI, be defined by the
:"Open Source Definition(tm)."

However, I will say that the industry tends to have a less defined
view of "open source" than the OSI, but still there is the idea that
open source must require not only access to the code but the ability
to modify it and distribute derivative works.  Hence, Slashdot's
characterization of the Microsoft Reference License aside (they called
it a "hobbled open source license") I don't think many people consider
the license to be open source in any meaningful sense primarily
because it does not allow preparation of derivative works.

In short, I think the minimal industry definition of open source (will
call it MIDOS to distinguish it from the OSI OSD) is:
1)  Source code must be available.
2)  Preparation of derivative works under the same or different
licenses must be allowed.
3)  Redistribution without royalty of source code and derivative works
must be allowed.
4)  Commercial and noncommercial use must be allowed.

I think when these points are violated, most people in the industry
stop calling something "open source."

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers