DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open

Raj Mathur raju at linux-delhi.org
Thu Jan 10 03:30:41 UTC 2008

On Thursday 10 Jan 2008, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> [snip]
> My opinion is that a "ideological position" how how software should
> be available, necessarily impacts the way software should be
> developed. If software developments follows the "free software"
> conditions, it will finally meet the conditions required by OSI for
> being "open source".

I wouldn't agree that conditions on how software should be available 
necessarily imply how it should be developed.  It is certainly possible 
to take a cathedral approach to software development, and finally 
release the application as FOSS.  Can't think of any examples right now 
off the top of my head though :)

> [snip]
> Let's stay away from the philosophic background of the FSF, this is
> their opinion (possibly shared volantrily by others) and it does not
> bind legally any of its supporters, outside of what is really written
> in the licence (excluding also the "Preamble" which is not binding,
> even though it is widely advertised, it is not a required part of the
> FSF licences, including in "verbatim" copies of the licence, a
> Preamble that you can freely drop if it does not reflect your
> opinion).

It's be unfair, when contrasting a philosophical movement (free 
software) with a pragmatic one (open source), to not mention the raison 
d'être for the philosophical movement.  Does anything remain of the 
free software movement once you take the philosophy away?


-- Raju
Raj Mathur                raju at kandalaya.org      http://kandalaya.org/
 Freedom in Technology & Software || February 2008 || http://freed.in/
       GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5  0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/   ||   It is the mind that moves

More information about the License-discuss mailing list