Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Migration
FLOSS's proposed new Monikers
By on
August 09, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- by Ronald Trip -
Instead of using the terms "Free Software" or "Open Source" in relation to "Free/Libre Open Source Software," maybe we should use the expresions "Permissive License" and "Permissive Licensed Software" to denominate FLOSS.
Instead of using the terms "Free Software" or "Open Source" in relation to "Free/Libre Open Source Software," maybe we should use the expresions "Permissive License" and "Permissive Licensed Software" to denominate FLOSS.
"Free/Libre Open Source Software" is a viable alternative to commercial software. Its licensing and development model yields high quality software, which could be very beneficial to the end-users of software at large. Despite of the benefits, FLOSS is still lagging behind commercial closed source software, when it comes to the rate of adoption. End users, typically the people who do not develop software, are not familliar with FLOSS and they don't know what to expect from FLOSS.
Besides lack of broad media exposure, I think this can be attributed in part to the confusing terms that are being used to signify FLOSS. "Free Software" and "Open Source" software are not expressions that the end-user understands, because they are to a certain ammount non-descriptive.
"Free Software" is too often misinterpreted as being gratis software, and therefore qualitatively less than the commercial alternatives. When it comes to "Free Software," not many people think of free as in freedom. As such the term "Free Software" is not helping acceptance.
"Open Source" is completely meaningless to the common public. An end user doesn't know what source is. They don't use "Source," they use binary packages. End users don't care if they can see the source code. Source code is of no value to them. End users experience value in the binary packages that run on their PCs. Those are what get their work done.
In light of the above it is clear that the denominations "Free Software" and "Open Source" do nothing to further wider acceptance of FLOSS. They only confuse the potential new FLOSS users. What we need are terms to which end-users can relate, which are descriptive to them.
The licensingm odel of sofware is of direct interest to the end user. It is the most important aspect of software besides its functionality. The license is, after all, the agreement which ties the end user to the framework of conditions under which s/he has the right to use the software. We all know that proprietary software restricts end users severely most of the time. This is a universe appart from FLOSS software, which gives the end user the right to distribute and modify the software, given the condition that the receivers of the software are granted the same rights as the distributor under the FLOSS license. I may be somewhat GPL tainted here, but I figure it isn't all that different with other FLOSS licenses.
The right to freely copy and distribute the software is a huge selling point to end users. This truly is the most powerful aspect of FLOSS. End users that use FLOSS don't have to fear the BSA. They are able to use and to share the software with as many users and as many PCs as they see fit. Giving friends a copy, and knowing that it is legitimate, must be an eye-opener to most end users. Combine this with the low cost and high quality of FLOSS and you'll see how it would attract new users, if only they would understand the basic tenet of FLOSS.
As pointed out before, "Free Software" and "Open Source" don't describe FLOSS to end-users as something of value to them. The terms don't say anything about the characteristics of FLOSS that are compelling or important to the end user. "Permissive License," however, is something that speaks to the end user. All end users know that software is licensed. They also know that they are practically prohibited to do anything with their proprietary software other then use it on one PC only. FLOSS grants them rights that far exceed the things other software licenses allow them to do. Hence "Permissive Licensed Software." From the viewpoint of the common user, "Permissive License" pretty much covers the most important aspect of FLOSS to them. It forms a nice contrast to the restrictive software world most end users are living in today.
"Permissive License" and "Permissive Licensed Software" also solves another problem: That of the "feud" between the proponents of the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source." "Permissive License" and "Permissive Licensed Software" do describe the special characteristic of FLOSS pretty well. It doesn't press forward the ideology behind "Free Software" nor does it say anything about the merrit driven aspects of "Open Source". I may be mistaken, but I think both factions could be reconciled over the naming if they used "Permissive Licensing" and "Permissive Licensed Software." "Permissive Licensed Software" is both "Free" and "Open Source."
I am just a fairly advanced GNU/Linux user, but I hope this piece does make a contribution. I would like this piece to be read by as many people as possible, and hope that it will be discussed on it's merits.
(Although I use GNU/Linux, I appreciate the existance of the BSDs, the HURD, and numerous other Permissive Licensed OSes.)
(c) Ronald Trip, Scharmer 2003 The Netherlands. This text may be freely copied, printed, stored and distributed on condition that this notice is preserved.
Comments
on FLOSS's proposed new MonikersNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
I strongly discourage the word 'permissive' as it is also used as a negitive meaning overly sexually active.
When talking to someone who doesn't know about licencing, I've settled on calling GPL-style (and to some degree BSD/Apache-style) licences "redistribution licences" or "redistribution and modification licences" usually in the context of no per-unit upfront cost and minimal hassles.
Sometimes I refer to it as "open distribution" .
For example; "Bugzilla is under an open distribution licence that allows anyone to use it without paying any licence fees."
Usually statements like that lead to questions on 'how' and 'why' as in 'how does anyone make money on that?' and 'how is it supported?'. I answer those questions and then if (and only if) there is interest segway into a brief comment or two on the free-as-in-speach aspects (though w/o using the terms 'free-as-in-beer' or 'free-as-in-speach').
Sure, I know about the specifics and can discuss them in detail. I intentionally do not overload people who I talk to since they aren't going to violate the scant requirements of the licence and need time to get used to what seems natural to most of us.
The main issue to most non-developers is "what would I owe?". In the vast majority of cases the answer has to cover both money and responsibility; no fees and if you are not changing the program no responsibilities. Get them using the software first, then if there are some specific restrictions let them know. In most cases, there aren't any that matter to those who use softare with either style of open licence.
When talking to someone who doesn't know about licencing, I've settled on calling GPL-style (and to some degree BSD/Apache-style) licences "redistribution licences" or "redistribution and modification licences" usually in the context of no per-unit upfront cost and minimal hassles.
Sometimes I refer to it as "open distribution" .
For example; "Bugzilla is under an open distribution licence that allows anyone to use it without paying any licence fees."
Usually statements like that lead to questions on 'how' and 'why' as in 'how does anyone make money on that?' and 'how is it supported?'. I answer those questions and then if (and only if) there is interest segway into a brief comment or two on the free-as-in-speach aspects (though w/o using the terms 'free-as-in-beer' or 'free-as-in-speach').
Sure, I know about the specifics and can discuss them in detail. I intentionally do not overload people who I talk to since they aren't going to violate the scant requirements of the licence and need time to get used to what seems natural to most of us.
The main issue to most non-developers is "what would I owe?". In the vast majority of cases the answer has to cover both money and responsibility; no fees and if you are not changing the program no responsibilities. Get them using the software first, then if there are some specific restrictions let them know. In most cases, there aren't any that matter to those who use softare with either style of open licence.
"Permissive" != "Promiscuous"
Remember the Monty Python bit about THE DEPARTMENT OF SILLY NAMES ?
Not only are people complaining that Linux hasn't been sufficiently dumbed down (to the point of being windows), now even the words "open source" are too complicated. What's next? Should we call Linux "Super-Duper Windows"?
No, the expression "Open Source" is very simple and most people were confident using it until Richard Stallman discovered that he was no longer the center of attention and decided to begin his language-nazi crusade.
To paraphrase the tenets of the GNU religion: People who say "Linux" and "Open Source" will go to hell. People who say "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" and pray to his holiness St. Stallman every night will go to heaven.
This is the sole reason that such insane expressions as "FLOSS" emerge. It's an attempt to stay out of the language war and concentrate on things that matter.
To paraphrase the tenets of the GNU religion: People who say "Linux" and "Open Source" will go to hell. People who say "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" and pray to his holiness St. Stallman every night will go to heaven.
This is the sole reason that such insane expressions as "FLOSS" emerge. It's an attempt to stay out of the language war and concentrate on things that matter.
Anonymous reader wrote: "This is the sole reason that such insane expressions as `FLOSS' emerge. It's an attempt to stay out of the language war and concentrate on things that matter."
Not to say that FLOSS is a good name, but giving credit where credit is due does matter.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Whatever you may think of Stallman as a public personality, he has reasons to be slighted by use of the name "Linux" for the entire operating system.
In my experience, people who say "Linux" and "Open Source" are offended by the "restrictions" in the GPL, or are trying to put a spin on a movement that will not affront business types. People who say "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" are trying to acknowledge the ethical aspects of said movement, and want to credit the GNU project with its foundational role.
Regarding Godwin's Law, please spare the "language-Nazi" rhetoric.
Cheerio,
TCP/IP Freely
Not to say that FLOSS is a good name, but giving credit where credit is due does matter.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Whatever you may think of Stallman as a public personality, he has reasons to be slighted by use of the name "Linux" for the entire operating system.
In my experience, people who say "Linux" and "Open Source" are offended by the "restrictions" in the GPL, or are trying to put a spin on a movement that will not affront business types. People who say "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" are trying to acknowledge the ethical aspects of said movement, and want to credit the GNU project with its foundational role.
Regarding Godwin's Law, please spare the "language-Nazi" rhetoric.
Cheerio,
TCP/IP Freely
"Not to say that FLOSS is a good name, but giving credit where credit is due does matter.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)"
True, but I don't agree that credit to the FSF is due here. Their nazi-attitude disqualifies them from representing ideals of freedom in any way.
"In my experience, people who say "Linux" and "Open Source" are offended by the "restrictions" in the GPL, or are trying to put a spin on a movement that will not affront business types. People who say "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" are trying to acknowledge the ethical aspects of said movement, and want to credit the GNU project with its foundational role."
I belong to the group of people who say "Linux" and "Open Source" and I am a bit offended by that attitude. I love the GPL. I acknowledge all the ethical aspects of the movement. I just don't think that the egomaniacal control-freak that is Richard Stallman is a suitable representative for them.
If you can convince mr. Stallman to get rid of his nazi-attitude I'll happily tack "GNU/" in front of every instance of the word "Linux" I can find.
"Regarding Godwin's Law, please spare the "language-Nazi" rhetoric."
Haha, I had never heard about this little gem before. But I <A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=godwin's+law&r=67" TITLE="reference.com">looked it up</a reference.com> and for something that is half-joke it actually makes a lot of sense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
True, but I don't agree that credit to the FSF is due here. Their nazi-attitude disqualifies them from representing ideals of freedom in any way.
"In my experience, people who say "Linux" and "Open Source" are offended by the "restrictions" in the GPL, or are trying to put a spin on a movement that will not affront business types. People who say "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software" are trying to acknowledge the ethical aspects of said movement, and want to credit the GNU project with its foundational role."
I belong to the group of people who say "Linux" and "Open Source" and I am a bit offended by that attitude. I love the GPL. I acknowledge all the ethical aspects of the movement. I just don't think that the egomaniacal control-freak that is Richard Stallman is a suitable representative for them.
If you can convince mr. Stallman to get rid of his nazi-attitude I'll happily tack "GNU/" in front of every instance of the word "Linux" I can find.
"Regarding Godwin's Law, please spare the "language-Nazi" rhetoric."
Haha, I had never heard about this little gem before. But I <A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=godwin's+law&r=67" TITLE="reference.com">looked it up</a reference.com> and for something that is half-joke it actually makes a lot of sense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Anonymous reader wrote: "...I don't agree that credit to the FSF is due here. Their nazi-attitude disqualifies them from representing ideals of freedom in any way."
To me, Stallman's attitude about the aims of the "Free software movement" is uncompromising, but it's never seemed outrageous or unjustified. (This is, of course, a matter of opinion.) Admittedly, Stallman is not always easy to get along with, but to the extent he's been vehement about defending the term GNU/Linux (say), it's always seemed to me that he's just asking for acknowledgement by the community that the GNU project has been influential to "Linux" as an operating system.
I recall that Ulrich Drepper (a glibc developer) and Stallman had a falling out over Drepper's feeling that Stallman was overly controlling, though I didn't follow the details. So, you're not alone in your assessment of Stallman. It's a shame you dislike him so much, but I don't doubt you have reasons.
"I belong to the group of people who say "Linux" and "Open Source" and I am a bit offended by that attitude."
No offense intended; I was deliberately being brief and general, and oversimplified the matter in the process. (Perhaps I've also become cynical about the "name debate" as the result of flame wars that have happened at Newsforge over this very issue...)
"Haha, I had never heard about this little gem [Godwin's Law] before."
It was too good not to mention.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Cheers,
TCP/IP Freely
To me, Stallman's attitude about the aims of the "Free software movement" is uncompromising, but it's never seemed outrageous or unjustified. (This is, of course, a matter of opinion.) Admittedly, Stallman is not always easy to get along with, but to the extent he's been vehement about defending the term GNU/Linux (say), it's always seemed to me that he's just asking for acknowledgement by the community that the GNU project has been influential to "Linux" as an operating system.
I recall that Ulrich Drepper (a glibc developer) and Stallman had a falling out over Drepper's feeling that Stallman was overly controlling, though I didn't follow the details. So, you're not alone in your assessment of Stallman. It's a shame you dislike him so much, but I don't doubt you have reasons.
"I belong to the group of people who say "Linux" and "Open Source" and I am a bit offended by that attitude."
No offense intended; I was deliberately being brief and general, and oversimplified the matter in the process. (Perhaps I've also become cynical about the "name debate" as the result of flame wars that have happened at Newsforge over this very issue...)
"Haha, I had never heard about this little gem [Godwin's Law] before."
It was too good not to mention.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Cheers,
TCP/IP Freely
LOL. I'd have to agree. The opinions of anyone who says "Stallman is a Nazi" are not worth the time of day.
Oh yeah, right, that's what the Nazis were known for! Unyielding, uncompromising demands for personal freedom and liberty for all.
That's AM Radio doublespeak for ya. Sure, Stallman isn't necessarily the guy you want to work next to, but he's the only guy I'd trust my freedoms with.
Oh yeah, right, that's what the Nazis were known for! Unyielding, uncompromising demands for personal freedom and liberty for all.
That's AM Radio doublespeak for ya. Sure, Stallman isn't necessarily the guy you want to work next to, but he's the only guy I'd trust my freedoms with.
"Oh yeah, right, that's what the Nazis were known for!"
Exactly. Egomanicial control-freaks who demanded "lebensraum", just like Richard Stallman.
Exactly. Egomanicial control-freaks who demanded "lebensraum", just like Richard Stallman.
Oh look, yet another irrational Stallman-hating twit. What a surprise.
Godwin's law is getting heavy use in this thread.
Godwin's law is getting heavy use in this thread.
>In my experience, people who say "Linux" and
>"Open Source" are offended by the
>"restrictions" in the GPL, or are trying to put
>a spin on a movement that will not affront
>business types.
What a load of shit.
>"Open Source" are offended by the
>"restrictions" in the GPL, or are trying to put
>a spin on a movement that will not affront
>business types.
What a load of shit.
Well, I did say "in my experience", so your assessment is, er, misguided.
A friendly word of advice: You'll sometimes find people in public forums willing to discuss issues (or even to reconsider things they've posted) if you articulate what you find offensive. Politeness, careful reading, and benefit of the doubt don't hurt, either.
Cheerio...
A friendly word of advice: You'll sometimes find people in public forums willing to discuss issues (or even to reconsider things they've posted) if you articulate what you find offensive. Politeness, careful reading, and benefit of the doubt don't hurt, either.
Cheerio...
the differences between the Open Source camp and the Free Software camp cannot be resolved by simply choosing another name.
the two camp represent different ideoligies and different goals.
people who use the term Free Software use it because they want to communicate their ideology, choosing a name "not ladden with ideology" as you propose will not fit their needs.
the ones who use Open Source are basically interested in communicating with other developers and IT managmement, they want to build a better engineering system the end user is not of great concern to them.
I'll stick with Free Software, Freedom matters even if it needs a little bit of explaining.
the two camp represent different ideoligies and different goals.
people who use the term Free Software use it because they want to communicate their ideology, choosing a name "not ladden with ideology" as you propose will not fit their needs.
the ones who use Open Source are basically interested in communicating with other developers and IT managmement, they want to build a better engineering system the end user is not of great concern to them.
I'll stick with Free Software, Freedom matters even if it needs a little bit of explaining.
The way you spell "freedom" with a capital "F" makes me want to puke but if you want to look like a islamic fundamentalist, go ahead.
"the ones who use Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... want to build a better engineering system the end user is not of great concern to them."
What? You are saying that the end user is of little concern to Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Guido van Rossum and practically all other major Free Software developers except Richard Stallman? Care to explain?
"the ones who use Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... want to build a better engineering system the end user is not of great concern to them."
What? You are saying that the end user is of little concern to Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Guido van Rossum and practically all other major Free Software developers except Richard Stallman? Care to explain?
what I look like is of no great concerns you should be able to judge my opinions rationaly and according to your ideals regardless of capital F's.
anyway I admit I over simplified the Open Source argument.
but you are also extremly underestimating the number of supporters of Free Software, and BTW Cox is among them.
anyway I admit I over simplified the Open Source argument.
but you are also extremly underestimating the number of supporters of Free Software, and BTW Cox is among them.
"what I look like is of no great concerns you should be able to judge my opinions rationaly and according to your ideals regardless of capital F's."
I am not going to take advice about rationality from somebody who judge developers by whether they say "Free Software" or "Open Source". But as I said: if you want to look like a complete fanatic with no serious arguments, go ahead.
"anyway I admit I over simplified the Open Source argument.
but you are also extremly underestimating the number of supporters of Free Software, and BTW Cox is among them."
I'm not underestimating anything. Give me the name of just one major developer, that isn't Richard Stallman himself, who consistently use only the term "Free Software" and never say "Open Source" (except when disparaging it).
And Alan Cox is not one of them.
I am not going to take advice about rationality from somebody who judge developers by whether they say "Free Software" or "Open Source". But as I said: if you want to look like a complete fanatic with no serious arguments, go ahead.
"anyway I admit I over simplified the Open Source argument.
but you are also extremly underestimating the number of supporters of Free Software, and BTW Cox is among them."
I'm not underestimating anything. Give me the name of just one major developer, that isn't Richard Stallman himself, who consistently use only the term "Free Software" and never say "Open Source" (except when disparaging it).
And Alan Cox is not one of them.
can you pease point out the line where I judged a developer according to what name he chooses??
I only said that choosing between Free Software and Open Source reflects different goals and ideals, I didn't say it makes you a better human being and I didn't say it makes you a better developer.
I myself use the two terms and try to respect both views, but I still prefer to belong to a social movement working for freedom.
I only said that choosing between Free Software and Open Source reflects different goals and ideals, I didn't say it makes you a better human being and I didn't say it makes you a better developer.
I myself use the two terms and try to respect both views, but I still prefer to belong to a social movement working for freedom.
"can you pease point out the line where I judged a developer according to what name he chooses??"
I already did, but sure:
No, you said quite clearly that people who use the term "Open Source" don't care about the end user. That is a judgement, whether you think not caring about end users makes someone a bad human being or not.
You can't determine someone's goals and ideals from whether they use the term "Free Software" or "Open Source". Sorry.
I already did, but sure:
"the ones who use Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the end user is not of great concern to them.""I only said that choosing between Free Software and Open Source reflects different goals and ideals, I didn't say it makes you a better human being and I didn't say it makes you a better developer.
No, you said quite clearly that people who use the term "Open Source" don't care about the end user. That is a judgement, whether you think not caring about end users makes someone a bad human being or not.
You can't determine someone's goals and ideals from whether they use the term "Free Software" or "Open Source". Sorry.
>I'll stick with Free Software, Freedom matters even
>if it needs a little bit of explaining.
Call it whatever you want. But be careful in assuming the motives of those who chose differently.
Some of us just think the naming battle is a stupid battle to fight, causing far more harm (in the form of in-fighting) than good.
>if it needs a little bit of explaining.
Call it whatever you want. But be careful in assuming the motives of those who chose differently.
Some of us just think the naming battle is a stupid battle to fight, causing far more harm (in the form of in-fighting) than good.
obviously I realise that some don't like the argument (the original author being one) I just pointed out that to those who choose to use one of the two terms it is not a stupid battle and it stems from real differences in goals and ideals.
the point is it isn't infighting, they are not the same movement (unless you choose to call differences between supporters of different political parties in one nation infighting).
the point is it isn't infighting, they are not the same movement (unless you choose to call differences between supporters of different political parties in one nation infighting).
"obviously I realise that some don't like the argument (the original author being one) I just pointed out that to those who choose to use one of the two terms it is not a stupid battle and it stems from real differences in goals and ideals."
Eh, no, actually you pointed out that those who choose to use the other of the two terms don't care about the end user...
Eh, no, actually you pointed out that those who choose to use the other of the two terms don't care about the end user...
ok excuse my bad english, I meant that the focus of their message is on the developer, but of course since their main goal is technical superiority this is good for the end user.
>the point is it isn't infighting, they are not
>the same movement (unless you choose to call
>differences between supporters of different
>political parties in one nation infighting).
They're only two separate groups with two separate goals in the minds of a very small number of closed-minded individuals on the extreme fringes. People on the fringe like to claim that those who share 99.9% of their goals and ideals are in fact not much different than those they both oppose, for the sake of that 0.1%. Usually the 0.1% has something to do with ideological purity. The naming battles behind "Free Software" and "Open Source" and "GNU/Linux" are no exception.
Lots of people like to blame the FSF or Stallman for this - making mountains out of molehills - but I don't think that's the case. I think little bumps like this in the road are inevitable in a large, important movement like this.
This is nothing new - it's exactly the kind of stuff that fragments groups supportive of revolutionary change, from politics to religion and everything in between. Read up on the U.S. election of 1912 for my favorite example. The trick is to not let it spin out of control.
>the same movement (unless you choose to call
>differences between supporters of different
>political parties in one nation infighting).
They're only two separate groups with two separate goals in the minds of a very small number of closed-minded individuals on the extreme fringes. People on the fringe like to claim that those who share 99.9% of their goals and ideals are in fact not much different than those they both oppose, for the sake of that 0.1%. Usually the 0.1% has something to do with ideological purity. The naming battles behind "Free Software" and "Open Source" and "GNU/Linux" are no exception.
Lots of people like to blame the FSF or Stallman for this - making mountains out of molehills - but I don't think that's the case. I think little bumps like this in the road are inevitable in a large, important movement like this.
This is nothing new - it's exactly the kind of stuff that fragments groups supportive of revolutionary change, from politics to religion and everything in between. Read up on the U.S. election of 1912 for my favorite example. The trick is to not let it spin out of control.
The FSF would like to sit back and have the
world feed and clothe them.
The rest of the world on the other hand actually
works for a living.
I think that the word "Permissive" is still a little confusing for regular people. "Open License" and "Open Licensed Software" are much clearer and, IMO, fit the actual definition of "Open Source" and "Free Software" better. I also think it fits better with the BSD and other FSF approved licenses.
What do you think?
A long time ago, I bought a copy of dBase IV from Borland. Inside the box was a very simple license. IIRC, it said something like "Software License" Treat this software package like a book -- it can only be used/read by one person at a time." That was basically it.
As to "Open License", it kind of grows on you...
I can visualize a little piece of paper in the box with the words:
"This software is copyrighted under the GPL, an Open License. It is an executable package, with no registration required.
You OWN it. You may copy it on as many machines as you wish and make backups, as many as you want.
You may give it away to another person without removing it from any machine on which you have installed it. In turn, they may copy it on as many machines as they wish...
You can sell this software to any one and they will have the same rights as you.
You have additional rights as well; please visit our site at htt p:/whatever. org to learn more."
That, to me, captures it for typical users. I don't think I have said anything that goes cross-wise to the GPL.
As to "Open License", it kind of grows on you...
I can visualize a little piece of paper in the box with the words:
"This software is copyrighted under the GPL, an Open License. It is an executable package, with no registration required.
You OWN it. You may copy it on as many machines as you wish and make backups, as many as you want.
You may give it away to another person without removing it from any machine on which you have installed it. In turn, they may copy it on as many machines as they wish...
You can sell this software to any one and they will have the same rights as you.
You have additional rights as well; please visit our site at htt p:/whatever. org to learn more."
That, to me, captures it for typical users. I don't think I have said anything that goes cross-wise to the GPL.
Yeah, that was Borland's license and it was a great thing. I was able to have Turbo C on both my home and work systems and it was all legal.
The more I've been thinking about it the more I like "Open License" and "Open Licensed Software" as the umbrella term for all of the FSF kind of licenses. Your "This software is copyrighted under the GPL, an Open License" take was excellent. I wish I was a somebody in the open source world so that I could get this idea out better.
The more I've been thinking about it the more I like "Open License" and "Open Licensed Software" as the umbrella term for all of the FSF kind of licenses. Your "This software is copyrighted under the GPL, an Open License" take was excellent. I wish I was a somebody in the open source world so that I could get this idea out better.
Borland's "No nonsense License Agreement" was probably one of the best things to happen to proprietary software. Most agreements are drawn up by lawyers and have multiple paragraphs devoted to establishing that "Yoyodyne" refers to Yoyodyne Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and "Software" refers to what's in that package you're holding in your hands. The terms were also utterly reasonable, very much in line with what real copyright law allows, and not full of ridiculous quid pro quos like requiring me to return the "Software" after a term of fifty (50) years from the date of purchase. This was actual, standard boilerplate in the license for Ashton-Tate software). To complete the circle, Ashton-Tate was acquired by Borland long before anyone's fifty-year term expired.
I kinda remembered my boss who really reiterated this when we proposed the deployment of open-source library solutions in public elementary and highschools, as compared to expensive proprietary ones like A****a and M****a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) [and good thing we won the right to deploy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D]
Why "People's Software"?
- Accessible to all people, regardless of creed, race or social standing
- Is generally created for the people by people, and not just some corporate interest for money
- People can join the development, and people reap the results of collaborative development, unlike closed-source products that inhibit people from improving the software directly.
- Free and Open Source Software EMPOWER PEOPLE rather than making them lowly-payed serfs of some corporate entity.
- Free and Open Source Software sets the people free from technological locks as enforced by many companies. Rather than let some companies lock and decide the users' own technological usage, Free and Open Source Software unbinds people and let them decide their own fate on their technological usage.
Why "People's Software"?
- Accessible to all people, regardless of creed, race or social standing
- Is generally created for the people by people, and not just some corporate interest for money
- People can join the development, and people reap the results of collaborative development, unlike closed-source products that inhibit people from improving the software directly.
- Free and Open Source Software EMPOWER PEOPLE rather than making them lowly-payed serfs of some corporate entity.
- Free and Open Source Software sets the people free from technological locks as enforced by many companies. Rather than let some companies lock and decide the users' own technological usage, Free and Open Source Software unbinds people and let them decide their own fate on their technological usage.
That won't work. Too many Americans will instantly yell "COMMUNIST!!!", staying true to their brainwashings. Joe McCarthy would be pleased.
If Ballmer called the GPL communist what do you think they'll say about "People's Software"?
That's what they already call it on the Microsoft campus.
Re:I'd also call it the "People's Software&qu
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 11, 2003 05:35 AM
"People" is not something you use in a corporate environment. So, yes, call it people's software if you're working for a charity or the the Green Party. But, no, this won't make it any more popular with the suits.
One of the #1 things in marketing is name recognition -- I think that OSS is to the point where "open source" is well known enough that changing terminology can only hurt.
Expecially with the SCO litigation in the news, terms like GPL, Open Source, and FSF are no longer scary to most computer literate people.
Expecially with the SCO litigation in the news, terms like GPL, Open Source, and FSF are no longer scary to most computer literate people.
If "Free Software" is renamed as "Richard's Software", then maybe we won't have to hear so many lectures about the difference between Linux and GNU/Linux. It's all "Richard's Software".
Non-GPL "open source" could be then called "Bruce 'n Eric's Software".
Non-GPL "open source" could be then called "Bruce 'n Eric's Software".
Community Owned Software?
Whatever "it" is, isn't owned by the community. The developers retain the ownership; modifiers retain ownership of their changes, but they don't own the original work. Linus still owns the parts of the Linux kernel that he wrote; Alan and Ingo and Robert own their respective parts, and so on.
You assume that all "open source" licenses are permissive. Many licenses that have been accepted by the OSI are actually quite restrictive and are hardly open at all. These codebases often have restrictions on what can be done with them and by whom.
If aint broke dont fix it
IMHO many not developers are confused with the subject of source code, which is where the term "Open Source" arises. Most windows users have a hard enough time figuring out the difference between and executable and a normal document, is this not why viruses are so prevalent on windows?
The if it is there I must click it attitude of most windows users, plus the hiding of the file extention in most cases.
No, I think a new supporting (i.e. not replacing Open Source or Free Software) term should be found, the previous mentioned "Open License" sounds good to me as it is not to different with what people are used to with the way MS used to name its licensing terms (until recently, Select volume Licenses anyone?). It also does not get a way from the Open Source term.
The if it is there I must click it attitude of most windows users, plus the hiding of the file extention in most cases.
No, I think a new supporting (i.e. not replacing Open Source or Free Software) term should be found, the previous mentioned "Open License" sounds good to me as it is not to different with what people are used to with the way MS used to name its licensing terms (until recently, Select volume Licenses anyone?). It also does not get a way from the Open Source term.
No reason to bother. All you're going to do is introduce more confusion. "Open source" is a perfectly acceptable name that trumps all of the flaws with the term Free Software. It's clear, it's accurate, and it has traction. I'm going with it, and so are the media and the general public so far.
Unfortunately, Richard Stallman and his hardcore followers will not accept any name other than Free Software, because they are simply unable to pick their battles. For some of us, the open source movement is about better software, business opportunities, and improving the digital commons. But for others, it's pure religion, and they will not bend or compromise on even the smallest, most meaningless of points.
So, we're left with a little more confusion than we should have to deal with. Sucks. But we'll survive, and we can still be allies. Stallman's done so much for the community that we should respect his religious beliefs, even if we don't agree with them. Let the hard-cases insist on tacking "GNU/" on the front of everything, or pretend that there's a huge philosophical divide (rather than a simple difference in semantics and clarity) between "open" and "free."
Call it whatever you want. Let's get back to work and stop making up more names. In-fighting will get us nowhere.
Unfortunately, Richard Stallman and his hardcore followers will not accept any name other than Free Software, because they are simply unable to pick their battles. For some of us, the open source movement is about better software, business opportunities, and improving the digital commons. But for others, it's pure religion, and they will not bend or compromise on even the smallest, most meaningless of points.
So, we're left with a little more confusion than we should have to deal with. Sucks. But we'll survive, and we can still be allies. Stallman's done so much for the community that we should respect his religious beliefs, even if we don't agree with them. Let the hard-cases insist on tacking "GNU/" on the front of everything, or pretend that there's a huge philosophical divide (rather than a simple difference in semantics and clarity) between "open" and "free."
Call it whatever you want. Let's get back to work and stop making up more names. In-fighting will get us nowhere.
Obviously nothing will be done about it at this point. But hey, it's August - slow news month.
I suggested "unrestricted software" to RMS a while ago, since it seems a better approximation of "Libre" in english.
Here's a rule of thumb for ya: "If RMS didn't suggest it, RMS won't like it".
I wouldn't call that better because "free software" is not "unrestricted" (though its restrictions only apply to those that wish to modify and redistribute it, not just use it). The phrase "less-restrictive software" would be more accurate, but probably not very good either.
Perhaps we should switch "Free Software" to "Comfy Software". Why? It's "comfy" because it's less restrictive and gives you more freedom of movement!
Then we should switch "Open Source Software" to "Open-toed Software" -- it gives you more wiggle room (for those that find that Comfy Software is just not comfy enough)!
..wayne..
Perhaps we should switch "Free Software" to "Comfy Software". Why? It's "comfy" because it's less restrictive and gives you more freedom of movement!
Then we should switch "Open Source Software" to "Open-toed Software" -- it gives you more wiggle room (for those that find that Comfy Software is just not comfy enough)!
..wayne..
Why not Libre Software? Both your comment and the article used it without further clarifications. We obviously think we know what it means.
English has a (proud) tradition of (mis-)appropriating words from other languages.
Free gets confused with price, Open implies simply readable source code. Face it, Free/Open Source Software comes with a set of philsophical baggage and in such scenarios, it is appropriate to use new words.
All that is needed is a nice pronouncable name like Linux (as opposed to GNU or BSD -- too geeky).
English has a (proud) tradition of (mis-)appropriating words from other languages.
Free gets confused with price, Open implies simply readable source code. Face it, Free/Open Source Software comes with a set of philsophical baggage and in such scenarios, it is appropriate to use new words.
All that is needed is a nice pronouncable name like Linux (as opposed to GNU or BSD -- too geeky).
The thing about "permissive" is that it's a negative term. It's as if you're saying let's permit free software because, like drugs and extra-marital sex, we can't really do anything about it. "Free" (in at least one sense) and "open" on the other hand are positive terms. "Open", of course, has that nasty connotation of being "insecure". So I'll stick with "free".
How about just calling it "Software"? Seems to me that the ones imposing restrictions on freedoms should be the ones searching for a good name for what they represent. Software, as represented by FLOSS, is historically the natural state of software.
But, I'm all for changing it from Free Software to Liberated Software, or Software Libre or something along those lines. Just to stop having to explain "free as in speech not as in beer".
But then I'd want to start an organization with a name like "The Software Liberation Front" or something.
But then I'd want to start an organization with a name like "The Software Liberation Front" or something.
When I use the word "free" to describe the software I advocate, I explain it in the context of the discussion.
Often the appeal IS "free as in beer". If so, then that's the perspective I present. It is the RARE newbie who is concerned with the ideology<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they just want to get out from under Windows for a price they can afford. Linux holds that door open for them. The cost of Windows upgrades is eating them alive and service packs that break things deep inside the system are kicking the corpse.
I also point out that they will need to upgrade "from the box" once in a while but that Linux won't treat them roughly when they do. I just bought a full-retail RH 9.0 personal box for $41.00 just to encourage the retail store to continue stocking it. I make $8 / hr<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so I am definitely putting my money where my mouth is.
I think it is important to upgrade "from the box" at least once per major revision number so as to keep the pumps primed and the lights on for those who do the coding.
So yeah, "free as in beer" also works. I'm fine with whatever gets the job done. In my book, that means 'Anything But MSFT'. (ABM)
Often the appeal IS "free as in beer". If so, then that's the perspective I present. It is the RARE newbie who is concerned with the ideology<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they just want to get out from under Windows for a price they can afford. Linux holds that door open for them. The cost of Windows upgrades is eating them alive and service packs that break things deep inside the system are kicking the corpse.
I also point out that they will need to upgrade "from the box" once in a while but that Linux won't treat them roughly when they do. I just bought a full-retail RH 9.0 personal box for $41.00 just to encourage the retail store to continue stocking it. I make $8 / hr<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so I am definitely putting my money where my mouth is.
I think it is important to upgrade "from the box" at least once per major revision number so as to keep the pumps primed and the lights on for those who do the coding.
So yeah, "free as in beer" also works. I'm fine with whatever gets the job done. In my book, that means 'Anything But MSFT'. (ABM)
In some parts of the world "Free Software" or "Software Libre" makes a lot of sense. In other parts "Open Source" is the "brand name" that gets the suits interested, even if many of them think that Java has to be involved, but that's just partial ignorance. In many places "Linux" is pervasive and at least partially understood.
Meanwhile, "Permissive Software/Source/whatever" is opaque, misleading and ridiculous. Whilst it may convey the impression that people just pass it round ("...man! Just like [insert favourite stimulant] at parties.") it also risks the suggestion that the community's attitude to copyrights is also permissive - this is *not* and has *never* been the case.
Personally, I think "Free Software" is just as good as "Open Source", but going round and using labels like "permissive" will get you contempt *and* ridicule from both the suits and the geeks.
Meanwhile, "Permissive Software/Source/whatever" is opaque, misleading and ridiculous. Whilst it may convey the impression that people just pass it round ("...man! Just like [insert favourite stimulant] at parties.") it also risks the suggestion that the community's attitude to copyrights is also permissive - this is *not* and has *never* been the case.
Personally, I think "Free Software" is just as good as "Open Source", but going round and using labels like "permissive" will get you contempt *and* ridicule from both the suits and the geeks.
First of all, if permissive has the connotation of being careless towards rules of morality or sexuality, I have been mistaken in proposing "Permissive Licensed Software". Dutch dictonaries don't point the negatives out too well.
The last thing the community wants is to explain that although called "Permissive" that they do have a strict set of rules based on copyrights. Drop the "Permissive" part. It was just a proposal, so it won't make a difference.
I have read the feedback, and it has some good points to it. Certainly the postings about the differences between the factions "Free Software" and "Open Source" are interesting. Still, my opinion is that they are two sides of the same coin. It should be possible to come to a resolution about how to promote FLOSS (and please don't let it be FLOSS. It sounds like something to do with dental wire).
The term "Open Licensed" and "Open Licensed Software" were coined. I myself think these are very good monikers. Although it still uses "Open", it pertains to the license and "Open License" will be interpreted as being accesible. Which would be descriptive to the End-user. Plus it is easily placed in front of the other terms. "Open Licensed Software" is "Open Source Software" or "Open Licensed Software" is "Free Software". Very good alternative indeed.
Biggest problem, what does the rest of the FLOSS world think of this?
Ronald.
The last thing the community wants is to explain that although called "Permissive" that they do have a strict set of rules based on copyrights. Drop the "Permissive" part. It was just a proposal, so it won't make a difference.
I have read the feedback, and it has some good points to it. Certainly the postings about the differences between the factions "Free Software" and "Open Source" are interesting. Still, my opinion is that they are two sides of the same coin. It should be possible to come to a resolution about how to promote FLOSS (and please don't let it be FLOSS. It sounds like something to do with dental wire).
The term "Open Licensed" and "Open Licensed Software" were coined. I myself think these are very good monikers. Although it still uses "Open", it pertains to the license and "Open License" will be interpreted as being accesible. Which would be descriptive to the End-user. Plus it is easily placed in front of the other terms. "Open Licensed Software" is "Open Source Software" or "Open Licensed Software" is "Free Software". Very good alternative indeed.
Biggest problem, what does the rest of the FLOSS world think of this?
Ronald.
I wrote the "Permissive == Ridiculous" comment above. Anyway, I'd agree that FLOSS sounds silly, too - FOSS (skip the "Libre" since the acronym is an English one) sounds a bit better, although it means "waterfall" in various Scandinavian languages.
As for the use of "open" without qualification, one does have to be careful - "open" is a widely abused term (eg. OpenVMS) - but if you're using "open" then what's wrong with "Open Source"?
Better promotion of "Free Software" and "Open Source", with them being mentioned together, is surely the best way forward until someone stumbles across the ultimate designation for those movements which can even persuade the top table to adopt it. I don't see that happening, though.
As for the use of "open" without qualification, one does have to be careful - "open" is a widely abused term (eg. OpenVMS) - but if you're using "open" then what's wrong with "Open Source"?
Better promotion of "Free Software" and "Open Source", with them being mentioned together, is surely the best way forward until someone stumbles across the ultimate designation for those movements which can even persuade the top table to adopt it. I don't see that happening, though.
"I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protest themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation.
For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I'll give you an example of that. There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap. In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago.
Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue. Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, were up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.
Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha."
- George Carlin
For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I'll give you an example of that. There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap. In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago.
Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue. Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, were up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.
Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha."
- George Carlin
Mr. Carlin, can you tell me, what terms for war trauma have to do with trying to find a marketable term for FLOSS?
The Free Open Source Software community is not trying to hide anything, on the contrary. Somehow the whole FLOSS thing is not coming accros to Joe Sixpack.
I speculated about the cause being that Free Software and Open Source simple don't ring a bell to common people.
What is wrong about finding a term that will do this job?
The Free Open Source Software community is not trying to hide anything, on the contrary. Somehow the whole FLOSS thing is not coming accros to Joe Sixpack.
I speculated about the cause being that Free Software and Open Source simple don't ring a bell to common people.
What is wrong about finding a term that will do this job?
RE:
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 09, 2003 05:39 PM#