Hi,
Nagarjun replies to a long thread in ilug Mumbai about Free Software and Open Source
Clarifies a lot of doubts. See the thread here http://mm.glug-bom.org/pipermail/linuxers/Week-of-Mon-20060417/025404.html
Regards Praveen _____________________________
This is a reply to the entire thread so far, so not quoting any of them.
I wish to clarify the difference by example, between OSS and <free> (swatantra/mukta/ajadi) software.
Take 'Pine', an email client, releases source code, you can modify the sources, but can't distribute the changes you make according to pine license. Such a software is open source according to OSI. So, opening is not enough, we need the freedom to distribute the changes we make. Similarly 'scilab', a scientific application, is open source but not a <free> software.
Therefore, all <free> software is open source, but not vice versa. So, free software is a proper subset of open source software.
However, the number of open source applications that are not free software is very very tiny. So, it is also correct to say MOST open source applications are free software. Count the number of applications, not the number of licenses, to get the correct inclusion relation between them. If, OSI excludes those few applications that do not give the freedom to distribute the changes, then all <free> software is open source and vice versa. FSF should not change its stand is very clear, if you see how carefully the <free> software is defined. OSI's definition is left vague. May be business thrives by being vague. Let us ask OSI to modify their license listing policy.
The use of the term 'open source' by the OSI may have created a nice term for the tongue, but at the cost of freedom. But, as I told you MOST open source applications do give you the freedom anyway. Still, it is surprising that OSI advocates seldom talk of the values like freedom. They continue to fetch contracts from govt and companies by arguing that oss is economical. Remember, they said they wanted to eliminate precisely this problem when they chose 'open' in place of 'free'. Did they succeed in clarifying? Certainly not.
Open source adherents talk of total cost of ownership, while <free> software people say freedom is always expensive for we need to protect it constantly. That is why I always end my speach with: "Run for freedom even if it is expensive!" In order to sustain freedom we need to constantly work against the tendencies that try to take away our freedom. Metaphorically, a system must do work to maintain its stability, other wise the system will tend to a state of higher entropy. <Free> software community is an open system, like a living organism, takes feed from the environment and sustains itself by working against non-free software and those who promote them.
I agree with the interpretation that <free> software is a social, cultural movement with wider implications to the future of human society. open source movement, if at all it is, emphasizes technology and a development model. I have no disagreements with their development model.
If only OSI mends their licensing list policy, the differences between <free> and open source community will become thinner, if not disappear.
-- "Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn." -- Richard Stallman Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr