Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Free Software as a brand

[Simon Ward]

On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 12:35:15PM +0100, Matthew Larsen wrote:
> However, when the second level of 'depth' of FOSS is reached even (and
> I admit myself) can get confused with all the different types of FOSS
> ... for example to differentiate between GNU, BSD etc licenses,
> Shared-source, corporate-sponsored, microsoft-style open source etc.

That’s a good reason to consolidate licensing.  The problem with company
executives “in the know” to the first level is they have their own idea
of how to take “open source” and use it, and then end up creating
another new license that fits their ideas and claiming it’s all “open
source”.

> 3) A strong definition of open-source software and identifiablity - kind of
> like point 2. If we pop into PC world and see a FOSS sticker slapped on
> something, or a piece of corporate software with it shoved on I feel it
> would provide a nice & easy way to identify the movement.

I dislike the idea that a corporate body has to be pivotal in this for
it to work.  Free software is a social, community driven thing.  Let’s
identify the community.  To do that, maybe one way is to decide who we
all are (are we a free software, open source, FOSS, or FLOSS
community?), but another would be just to acknowledge each exists with
broadly similar goals, stop sniping at each other, and be seen to
cooperate with each other.  This community is inclusive of corporate
entities, but should not revolve around them.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature