Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 17:53:28 -0800

On 11/4/02 10:45 AM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:

> But you're missing my point---"Tim is right; let's not draw boundaries
> without need."  Of course free software has advantages over "published
> source" in supporting communities, etc.  I certainly would hope that
> the OSI would advocate _free_ software as strongly as possible, too,
> whatever definition of "open" they choose.  Both because FS is PC, and
> because it is socially beneficial.
> 
> But having a nice "halo word" like "open" available would make it
> easier to discuss just which proprietary rights "I wish I could just
> call it `open' source" can retain and still [form communities|generate
> business|...].  Instead, any such line of thought has to first defend
> itself from the (absolutely correct, on the current definitions)
> accusation that "that's not free/open".

Maybe "published source" is the word to use.  But frankly, I agree.  I wish
"open source" meant something more like Stephen is pointing to, with a
broader definition.  That way "open source" and "free software" wouldn't be
quite so close, and stepping on each other's toes all the time.  The
difference wouldn't matter only to a small group of cognoscenti.

-- 
Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
1-707-829-0515 http://www.oreilly.com, http://tim.oreilly.com