Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 02:09:24AM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> > "open" does not mean "has source available"; "Open Source" is defined
>> > here: http://opensource.org/osd . (That link may look rather familiar,
>> > as the OSI based their definition on the DFSG.)
>>
>> Aside from any re-definitions/interpretations made by OSI respectively
>> the community, "open source" by the words alone means open source,
>> which doesn't imply any freeness, or whether it's copyleft or not.
>> See for example
>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html for
>> more thoughts on free vs. open.
>
> Wait, you are citing this to advocate using "open" to mean "non-free, but with
> source"? Are you intentionally trying to cause maximum confusion?
>
>> Also just because the OpenSource community claims "open source" to
>> have the meaning which we all commonly assume, doesn't mean that this
>> belongs to us.
>
> The open source and free software communities have almost 100% overlap. I'm
> pretty sure there is very broad consensus that we don't want to piss off
> everyone who says "open source", especially if there's no reason for it.
FYI: there are people out there who are still angry at ESR/OSI for
hijacking the term "open source" to mean essentially the same thing as
"Free Software" instead of what they used it for; anything with
publicly released source code.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: