Re: [PubSoft] [rms@gnu.org: Nonprofits and free software]

At 03:01 23.01.2003 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
-------------------------
> If he hears "Open Source", that is much more
> clear.
>
>Nearly everyone I meet misunderstands "open source".
>They think it means, "you can look at the source".
>
>That is very different from the official definition of "open source".
>The term "open source" seems to produce lots of misunderstanding.

Imagine that you are in a fairly lawless situation. No licenses. No law
enforcement. (Yes, there are laws, but they are not/cannot be enforced).
If everybody can "look at the source", then in this situation, all the
other benefits follow more or less automatically.

> If you complain, that their release is not Free Software anymore,
> they will
> reply: "Of course it is. You can copy it, use it, don't need to pay me,
> etc. I don't care!"
>
>Did you try showing them the definition of free software?

This is exactly, what I mean: With "Free Software" you /have to/ show them
the definition, since the term (even if you don't have the English-language
ambiguity with "free") is not sufficiently self explaining to get the
intended results.

> If you complain, that it is not Open Source anymore,
> they will have to admit it.
>
>If they admit this, do they change their behavior?

This is what I mean: Again - don't think in your over-regulated US
environment, but in a fairly "lawless" situation: If we campaign, that
programmers should produce "Free Software", then we have to do also a lot
of explanation work about what Free Software is, and what makes it
different from Freeware, etc. Without that, programmers would think they
follow the calls and produce "Free Software", where in fact they are
producing only some kind of Freeware.

If on the other side, we call on them to produce "Open Source Software",
then we can, but don't have to explain much more. Programmers who want to
follow, would make the source available, and all the other benefits follow
/in our situation/ quite automatically.

Consider also, that there will be articles written/copied by journalists
who don't know anything about the issue and/or who want or have to be very
brief. "Open Source Software" works without much explanation and background
understanding, whereas "Free Software doesn't".

This does not mean that we have to stick forever with "Open Source
Software" and abandon "Free Software". It just means, that I think, that
initially we crack the closed SW thinking easier with "open up" than with
"get free".

And who knows, maybe we can invite you at some time to come to Vietnam to
expand the horizon from "Open Source" to "Free".
If there was already "Hanoi-Jane" [Fonda], then why could there not also be
an "Hanoi-Richard" [Stallman]? <g>...

Cheers,
Stefan

"Independence - Freedom - Happiness" ...
I wonder whether Uncle Ho [Chi Minh] copy-lefted that slogan ;)

> PS: FYI: Since the predecessor of this list was more intended for
> practical
> actions than theoretical discussions, we choose the term "Public
> Software",
> with "Public" like "Public Good", which includes not only Software, but
> also standards and interfaces.
>
>That's not a bad choice.

To facilitate co-ordination regarding the introduction of OSS SW in Vietnam

Subscribe to OSS:

Subscribe | Unsubscribe