"Free" and "Open Source" Software: Navigating the Shibboleths
,----[ Quote ]
| To outsiders, software whose source code is freely distributable is open
| source software. However, as soon as you become involved with the community
| that centers around such code, you quickly find that it is also called free
| software -- and that the two terms are far from synonymous. Which term you
| choose to use can quickly associate you with a whole spectrum of political
| and philosophical beliefs, and can make the difference between receiving
| cooperation and being ostracized. As a newcomer, you might easily imagine
| that you have stumbled out of the woods and into the target end of a rifle
| range, all because of your innocent choice of jargon.
`----
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3731896
Related:
Should we fight the proprietary open source power?
,----[ Quote ]
| The definition has changed since I first wrote the Open Source Incline back
| in 2006. It’s now a development model, not a licensing model.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1957
Forrester: Open source apps lag behind Linux in the enterprise
,----[ Quote ]
| Interest in the deployment of open source enterprise applications is lagging
| far behind knowledge of and deployment of the Linux operating system,
| according to a survey from analyst group Forrester Research.
`----
http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/applications/news/index.cfm?newsid=6703
Why “open source” misses the point of software freedom
,----[ Quote ]
| The philosophy of the younger open source movement is an inadequate response
| to the older free software movement; the ethics the open source movement
| never discuss keep coming up (any discussion of digital management
| restrictions (DRM), the recent update Microsoft pushed on Windows users
| without the the user’s consent are recent examples).
`----
http://www.digitalcitizen.info/2007/09/27/why-open-source-misses-the-point-of-software-freedom/
Public Advocacy for Open Source Software--Preferences and Requirements
,----[ Quote ]
| To the extent that the public funding agency has a defined goal of
| funding "open source software", the OSI has always encouraged precisely one
| definition: software licensed under one of the more than 60 OSI-approved
| licenses.
`----
http://opensource.org/node/199
Why, Why, Why OSI?
,----[ Quote ]
| See? It doesn't say OSI can't discriminate. It can if it wants to, as far as
| the OSD is concerned. So Microsoft's representatives and defenders need to
| stop twisting the definition's words.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070821170512281
OSI email group gets catty over Microsoft's Permissive License request
,----[ Quote ]
| Things got really interesting when Chris DiBona, longtime OSI member, open
| source advocate, and open source programs manager for Google, Inc. chimed in:
|
| I would like to ask what might be perceived as a diversion and maybe even
| a mean spirited one. Does this submission to the OSI mean that Microsoft
| will:
|
| a) Stop using the market confusing term Shared Source
| b) Not place these licenses and the other, clearly non-free , non-osd
| licenses in the same place thus muddying the market further.
| c) Continue its path of spreading misinformation about the nature of
| open source software, especially that licensed under the GPL?
| d) Stop threatening with patents and oem pricing manipulation schemes
| to deter the use of open source software?
|
| If not, why should the OSI approve of your efforts? That of a company who
| has called those who use the licenses that OSI purports to defend a
| communist or a cancer? Why should we see this seeking of approval as
| anything but yet another attack in the guise of friendliness?
`----
http://www.linux.com/feature/118677
Reverse-Halloween: The Marketing Checkbox Strategy
,----[ Quote ]
| Getting Microsoft software licenses OSI-approved and similarly getting
| Microsoft's proprietary document formats approved at ISO are like painting an
| old Chevrolet.
|
| [...]
|
| This may be enough to satisfy the enterprise customer that he is achieving
| something different. Clearly, the substance is no different: it's a lock-in
| in sheep's clothing.
`----
http://fussnotes.typepad.com/plexnex/2007/08/the-marketing-c.html
Merging "Open Source" and "Free Software"
,----[ Quote ]
| Of course, they are not. Other Shared Source licenses may very well be too
| restrictive to be considered Open Source. But, Microsoft may conveniently
| divert the attention from this little detail to the fact that some of
| Shared Source licenses are Open Source.
`----
http://www.libervis.com/article/merging_open_source_and_free_software
Microsoft not so 'open' after all?
,----[ Quote ]
| Head of open-source group says more than half of licenses don't pass muster
|
| [...]
|
| Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source Initiative, said
| that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's shared-source licenses
| that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system
| would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as laid out by
| the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use, modify as
| they see fit.
|
| [...]
|
| By his count, the OSI has rejected "two dozen" or so license applications for
| language that restricted the use or redistribution of software and its source
| code, even when the restrictions were written with what Tiemann
| called "moral" intent. For instance, the OSI has rejected license
| applications from Quakers and other pacifists who sought to prevent the use
| of software for weapons such as landmines.
|
| "I am highly sympathetic to that point of view," he said. "But the OSI is not
| in the business of legislating moral use. We allow all use, commercial or
| non-commercial, mortal or medical."
`----
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028318&intsrc=news_ts_head
|
|
