[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Open Source" is not the same as "Free Software"

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:41:30PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> In http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes/20010516 there are the following
> statements from Ean Schuessler:
>       There are two ways we can go with this Open Source thing. We can turn
>       the domains over to OSI, which I believe is a bad idea for reasons I
>       think I've made relatively clear both in email and in the IRC
>       discussion. Or we can form a committee to solicit assistance from the
>       community and try to turn the domains into a useful tool for insuring
>       that the definition of Free Software stays consistent. I think that
>       protecting the meaning of Free Software (even when it is called Open
>       Source) is well defined in our charter and I think our path of action
>       here should be clear.
> [...]
>     Ean wanted people to join a new Open Source committee to discuss these
>     issues. His main personal concern is that a fork between the terms Free
>     Software and Open Source is not acceptable. A decision is made to form
>     the OS committee under lead of Ean and let them work on the issue.
> So, basically, if you want to change the official Debian stance on the
> issue, and therefore the web page, you need to talk to someone else than
> debian-www.

Is Ean's stance the official Debian stance? In the [...] part that you omit it

   Wichert thought that trying to remain in control over opensource is not
   going to win us anything; the trademark has been lost already and the
   domain isn't all that useful and using it to control OSI will only be a PR
   nightmare. Branden suggested turning the domains over, but accompanying it
   with an open letter decrying OSI's habit of whoring themselves out to any
   license with enough commercial backing. 

Things have changed a lot since 1998 when Bruce Perens launched the Open
Source movement based on the DFSG; and some web pages (like the one I
was criticizing) have not been updated accordingly.


Reply to: