Re: [Fsfe-uk] open source software and uk government

[Georg C. F. Greve]

 || On 17 Dec 2001 14:45:26 +0000
 || Alex Hudson <address@hidden> wrote: 

 >> There is no requirement to pass Free Software on for no
 >> charge. They appear to be somewhat confused about the definition
 >> of Free Software.

 ah> Hmm. Seems we interpret that sentance differently :) 

After reading your comment, it became obvious. I guess it just looked
too much like the old "you must not charge money for Free Software"
misunderstanding. 


 ah> I'm not sure they set out to understand free software; 

So because they didn't have that goal they didn't fail? :-)


 ah> they quote the Open Source Definition from opensource.org, and
 ah> they use the term Open Source rather than Free Software knowingly
 ah> (section 1.2.6). 

 ah> However, it then becomes difficult to reconcile this with that
 ah> fact that the "Open Source" software they talk about is also Free
 ah> software (e.g., I don't think Sun's community license, or
 ah> Microsoft's shared source, would be considered 'Open Source' in
 ah> this case), so perhaps they've read too much biased material &
 ah> believe it...

This is an excellent example why "Open Source" is such a bad term.

They seem to be talking about "Open Source as in the source can be
seen" and not "Open Source as in the Open Source Definition." 

But in doing so, they refer to opensource.org and make people people
believe they do talk about "Open Source as in the OSD" which is
(license-wise) almost identical to Free Software, whereas "Open Source
as in the source can be seen" clearly includes proprietary software.


How this would be easier to understand for newcomers than "Free
Software is software that gives you certain freedoms" totally escapes
me.


But it seems they are being heard by the UK government, so we should
try to explain things to them so the UK government won't receive
totally confused and warped information.


 ah> It may well be worth writing something to both QinetiQ and the
 ah> Government, about where we agree with this document (some of it
 ah> is very good), where we disagree and why the benefits of 'Open
 ah> Source' this document points out are actually the benefits of
 ah> Free Software, and why the Open Source game is dangerous.

Do you feel capable of writing such a document? If it works out well,
we might even consider sending it in the name of your new organization
and the FSF Europe.

Regards,
Georg

-- 
Georg C. F. Greve                                 <address@hidden>
Free Software Foundation Europe                  (http://fsfeurope.org)
GNU Business Network                        (http://mailman.gnubiz.org)
Brave GNU World                            (http://brave-gnu-world.org)

pgpOo4TIqtrat.pgp
Description: PGP signature