[License-discuss] FAQ suggestion
luis at lu.is
Mon Nov 11 21:59:30 UTC 2013
That seems like a reasonable addition to me, and addresses real, recent
Karl and Richard are on planes today, and I would like to hear their
thoughts before taking it live, though.
On Nov 10, 2013 10:38 AM, "Engel Nyst" <engel.nyst at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello license-discuss,
> I would propose an additional paragraph to the FAQ, for the question
> What is "free software" and is it the same as "open source"?
> The text currently says:
> > One of the tactical concerns most often cited by adopters of the term
> > "open source" was the ambiguity of the English word "free", which can
> > refer either to freedom or to mere monetary price; this ambiguity was
> > also given by the OSI founders as a reason to prefer the new term
> > (see "What Does `free' Mean, Anyway?", and similar language on the
> > marketing for hackers page, both from the original 1998 web site).
> At this point in the text, I'd suggest to insert a little explanation on
> the ambiguity in the use of the term of open source as well. Quick draft...
> > On the other hand, the term "open" applied to the source is sometimes
> > used in the sense of merely "provided" or "visible", but the open
> > source definition sets the criteria for "open source" to software
> > licenses that guarantee a set of perpetual and irrevocable
> > rights to every recipient.
> The text should then probably skip "furthermore", and continue...
> > The FSF uses a shorter, four-point definition of software freedom
> > when evaluating licenses, while the OSI uses a longer, ten-point
> > definition. The two definitions lead to the same result in practice,
> > but use superficially different language to get there.
> I hope it will help with a number of misunderstandings.
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss