Re: [DotGNU]"Open source" is not what we do here

[Matthew C. Tedder]

> If memory serves me right, Matthew C. Tedder wrote:
> > Except that Free Software falls under the Open Source definition
perfectly,
> > so it is a specific kind of Open Source.
>
> But the converse is not true -- that is what I understood, in my
> short period in Free Software.

Yes.. Open Source is not necessarilly Free Software.  I can be, but isn't
necessarilly.
On the other hand, Free Software is ALWAYS Open Source.

>
> > It is perfectly inaccurate to say that it is not Open Source -- I think
> > you mean that it should be distinguished from other Open Source
variants.
>
> Free Software is not about providing access to source -- theoretically
> it should be provided in physical media if requested. For OSS it is due to
> an accident that the source gets distributed , not due to intention.

The very name "Open Source Software" implies the intentional
distribution of source code with the software.  The OSS definition spells
then
spells it out specifically.

>
> > Isn't the only principle distinguishing factor that GPL guarantees that
> > derrivatives remain GPL-licensed?
>
> AFAIK, GPL is not the only free software license. GPL (or GNU GPL) is
> just a Free Software license with Copyleft .

Yes... I know...  Just using the most common example..

>
> > It's merely one of the infinite variations allowed under the Open
> > Source definition.
>
> In an analogy, could you say man is not worthy of mention, because he
> is just one among the infinite variety of species.

I never suggested that GPL isn't worthy of mention--only to note that
RMS is using misleading language.  I believe he means to say that
there is something very distinguishing about Free Software that sets it
apart from other OSS software.  You cannot say it isn't OSS
software when it perfectly falls within the very definition.

In a sense, you could say that Free Software is not OSS software, because
it, as a concept, isn't perfectly the same thing.  But then again you can
say
that it is, as in that Free Software is a type of OSS.  The statement can
therefore be accurate or inaccurate depending on what you mean.  However,
to say "Free Software is not OSS" is therefore simply misleading.

>
> > That distinguishing factor is not "different" from the Open Source
> > definition because the Open Source definition allows one the
> > flexibility to do such things.
>
> To make my point clear to call "Free Software" a variant of "Open Source"
> would be like saying Humans are a variety of mammals.

That is exactly right.  And we cannot say that humans are different from
mammals
because we are, in fact, mammals.  We can only say that we are different
from
other mammals.  Humans are a type of mammal in the same way Free Software
is a type of OSS.  The two do not conflict--one is a subclass of the other.

>
> (putting us at par with the cat,rat and bat in everything except a
> few extra capabilities -- like think,create etc... -- "but the definition
> of mammals allows for that flexibility"...).

Yes...  According to the definition of a mammal, we are the all mammals.
Just
like black American wouldn't make you unAmerican because there are also
white, Asian, and various other variations of Americans.
>
> Similarly,
>
> GPL has the crucial aspect of passing on freedom to its derievatives
> just like humans pass on knowledge to their children. That makes all
> the difference !

But it still makes humans a mammal.   It doesn't make them not a mammal.
So how can that make GPL not OSS?  You can't say that it isn't because
the definition applies to it perfectly.

>
> > Am I missing anything, because as far as I can see, this is all
perfectly
> > and clearly verifiable.
>
> Did I put this old ghost to rest or did I restart a flame war ?.

I have no hostility brewing.  Why should there be?

>
> Gopal.V
>
> PS: I hope my examples were good enough ! (ROTFLAMO !)
> --
>  The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success
>  //===<=>===\\
> || GNU RULEZ ||
>  \\===<=>===//
>