Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: Rich Bodo <rsb@ostel.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:25:56 -0800 (PST)


> > 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.

I use "source available" to describe source code that is freely
available, without implying knowledge of licensing or copyright
restrictions. i.e. "It might not be open source, but it's at least
source available."

"free software" << "open source" << "source available"

-Rich

Rich Bodo | rsb@ostel.com | 650-964-4678