Good but incorrect... [LWN.net]

Good but incorrect...

Posted Aug 1, 2003 10:08 UTC (Fri) by jdthood (guest, #4157)
In reply to: Good but incorrect... by hummassa
Parent article: Don't be afraid: Linux is good for you (Globe and Mail)

I think that a better replacement would be 'open' --
not 'open source' but simply 'open'. 'Open' is a warm,
fuzzy term that connotes both the openness of the source
_and_ the openness of the possibilities to use, study,
modify and distribute. _And_ the open-endedness of the
movement, its openness to participants, and so on. Of
course, the term might be open to abuse.

(Log in to post comments)

Good but incorrect...

Posted Aug 3, 2003 2:20 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Your definition of "open" requires the listener interpret it the same way that you do. It's rampantly exploitable. Shared Source lets (a few) people see (some bits of) code. Sound's "open" to me.

How does "open" connote "the openess of the possiblity to [...] distribute"?
Kinda stretching it there, aren't you ;p

What good is "open" software without the freedom to modify it and redistribute modified versions?

"Unfettered" is a pretty good replacement to "Free" but in the end, it's the freedom that's important.

Ciaran O'Riordan