Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
here's the link
Posted Jan 27, 2010 0:21 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
A) completely wrong, and the truth is that "open source" really was coined mainly to fix the "no cost" ambiguity? or
B) generally right that distancing themselves from Richard's ideals was a bigger priority than fixing the cost ambiguity, but I've made the slightest historical error or incompleteness which can be used to justify calling me wrong :-)
OSI's history page strongly suggests B. There history page should be either accurate, or a reflection of how *they* see the important points of the meeting & aftermath. (Bruce, it's obvious that *your* goal wasn't to push RMS under the carpet.)
Posted Jan 27, 2010 1:02 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
The next day the whole thing was introduced to me as marketing Free Software to business. The fact that Eric later engaged in some RMS deprecation was unfortunate and of course never something I wanted or approved of. It should be viewed as Eric's activity, not that of the Open Source initiative.
There is some other statement of history that I dispute on that site. For example, the O'Reilly conference which they seem to view as important in acceptance of Open Source actually came a while after Open Source was announced, and IMO really wasn't important.
And you know full well that the OSD is the Debian Free Software Guidelines with a new title, and even RMS approved of it at the time, so why the heck are you dumping on it?
Posted Jan 27, 2010 2:23 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
Thanks for the info about the sequence of events.
OSI used Debian's criteria, which is great, but cut off the philosophy by which Debian rejects (or at least scorns) software that fails the criteria. My negativity is about this de-coupling. People are simply told how to categorise software. Luckily, values of the free software movement and values of the hacker community have survived and exist even in projects which exclusively use "open source" terminology, but this survival seems to have nothing to do with OSI.
So, as I was reading OSI's Annotated OSD (quoted below), looking for philosophy, I though it funny that when I found a clause which could be read as promoting social values, it's immediately followed by a note giving only an efficiency rationale for having this criteria - as if to avoid some horrible confusion that equal access might be a good thing in and of itself.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds