Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:00:48 -0800 From: "Brett Etter" <Brett.Etter@hsa.hitachi.com> To: lwn@eklektix.com, Brett Etter <bretter@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Comments on Open Source vs. Free Software --------------190C0349DD863717A48BE68C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As a relatively new user to the Linux community, I would like to voice some opinions on the discussions between Free Software and Open Source naming. As a brief background, I am in the process of learning Linux - I have been doing that part time for several months now. I am very much on the user side at the current time, but learning quickly on the development side. So, the opinions below reflect the fact that I am a User of the software rather than a Developer. The statement that the Open Source name complicates the awareness problem for the Linux community may or may not be true. For me, something labeled as "free software" does not carry the best of connotations, and I would argue that changing a customer's awareness and definition of an existing concept (free software) is infinitely more difficult than creating an awareness and definition from scratch (as with Open Source). Furthering this point is my background on the hardware side of computers. In hardware, an Open Standard or Open Architecture is regarded as a very good thing. It is open for development and improvement by anyone involved. It is a well established concept on the hardware side, and could easily be transferred to the software side. And in order to convince the consumer side to go to Linux, any help is good help. In response to a quote from the Linux Weekly News below: > While it is true that "free" doesn't bring the right image to an awful lot of > English-speaking folks, "open source" doesn't do a whole lot better. If > Maybe not a whole lot better, but it seems that people agree that it IS better. Especially if you consider my point above regarding creating awareness vs. changing an existing paradigm in those finicky customers. > nothing else, far too many of us have long learned to distrust any product > that describes itself as "open" anything. > Perhaps we should ask who the name is for? Is the name Open Source for the developers and hackers already in the industry? If so, then you should stick with Free Software - everyone already knows the term. But, if the target audience are the consumers in the marketplace, then then argument of bad experiences with "open" anything is not pertinent. Most consumers already consider an Open Standard or Open Architecture to be much better for the industry - both in product availability and lower cost (wide familiarity of PC vs. Mac and the results). Overall, I think that using the word "Open" in the description will be much more beneficial in the long run. If Open Source is not the correct version, then possibly investigate capitalizing on the other versions that people already trust. Whether that is Open Standard Software or Open Archtecture Software or Open Development Software or some other combination. I would like to emphasize that in the long run (and my opinion), that using an Open version will bring many more benefits than using Free in the names. And, the intention is to take the availability to the consumer market, so the name must be tailored to their tastes - OR - create new tastes for them. Either way, Open is a better fit than the existing Free. Please feel free to pass this around to others interested in the discussion or contact me in the future. Brett Etter bretter@ix.netcom.com --------------190C0349DD863717A48BE68C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML> As a relatively new user to the Linux community, I would like to voice some opinions on the discussions between Free Software and Open Source naming. As a brief background, I am in the process of learning Linux - I have been doing that part time for several months now. I am very much on the user side at the current time, but learning quickly on the development side. So, the opinions below reflect the fact that I am a User of the software rather than a Developer. <P>The statement that the Open Source name complicates the awareness problem for the Linux community may or may not be true. For me, something labeled as "free software" does not carry the best of connotations, and I would argue that changing a customer's awareness and definition of an existing concept (free software) is infinitely more difficult than creating an awareness and definition from scratch (as with Open Source). <P>Furthering this point is my background on the hardware side of computers. In hardware, an Open Standard or Open Architecture is regarded as a very good thing. It is open for development and improvement by anyone involved. It is a well established concept on the hardware side, and could easily be transferred to the software side. And in order to convince the consumer side to go to Linux, any help is good help. <P>In response to a quote from the Linux Weekly News below: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE>While it is true that "free" doesn't bring the right image to an awful lot of English-speaking folks, "open source" doesn't do a whole lot better. If</PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe not a whole lot better, but it seems that people agree that it IS better. Especially if you consider my point above regarding creating awareness vs. changing an existing paradigm in those finicky customers. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE>nothing else, far too many of us have long learned to distrust any product that describes itself as "open" anything.</PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps we should ask who the name is for? Is the name Open Source for the developers and hackers already in the industry? If so, then you should stick with Free Software - everyone already knows the term. But, if the target audience are the consumers in the marketplace, then then argument of bad experiences with "open" anything is not pertinent. Most consumers already consider an Open Standard or Open Architecture to be much better for the industry - both in product availability and lower cost (wide familiarity of PC vs. Mac and the results). <P>Overall, I think that using the word "Open" in the description will be much more beneficial in the long run. If Open Source is not the correct version, then possibly investigate capitalizing on the other versions that people already trust. Whether that is Open Standard Software or Open Archtecture Software or Open Development Software or some other combination. <P>I would like to emphasize that in the long run (and my opinion), that using an Open version will bring many more benefits than using Free in the names. And, the intention is to take the availability to the consumer market, so the name must be tailored to their tastes - OR - create new tastes for them. Either way, Open is a better fit than the existing Free. <P>Please feel free to pass this around to others interested in the discussion or contact me in the future. <P>Brett Etter <BR>bretter@ix.netcom.com <BR> </HTML> --------------190C0349DD863717A48BE68C--