Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: ECF/ESF

[lists]

On 10/5/2004, "Stuart A Yeates"
<address@hidden> wrote:
>address@hidden wrote:
>
>> Or not. Semantically speaking, the FSF has long pointed out that to a
>> non-programmer, "Open Source" is every bit as meaningless, and even to
>> a programmer the term is ambiguous. The source could be open, but you
>> have no freedoms associated with it.
>
>We have written a document that attempts to explain to a non-programmer
>what benefit they might gain from having access to the source code of
>the programs they use.
>
>http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/whysource.xml
>
>Feedback is welcome.

It's a good, concise summary, and no doubt suitable for your purpose.
But for more general use, there are two problems:

1 - The term "Open Source" itself in no way means all the things that
the OSI definition includes, so you have ended up talking about
"freeing" and "freedom" anyway to clarify it ;)

2 - That takes a while to explain. If you want to explain OSS/FS to
someone on a busy, noisy stall in under a minute, it's not suitable; if
you want to explain it to someone not in terms of how it would benefit
their institution or themselves, but why it is a *good thing*, it's not
suitable; the list could go on. I stand by saying that the FS term is
far more appropriate. What could be more easy than saying "It's FS...
FS means four freedoms... these enable x, y and z... from a technical
point of view, they mean better software because of x, y and z..."?

To me, your document gets things backwards. It tries to explain to a
non-programmer why they should think like a programmer, or why they
should appreciate the benefits of OSS to a programmer. It then does a
very good job of showing how the programmers' benefits can be good for
the user, but still I prefer to start with why they should *care* about
FS and then how it can benefit them. But maybe that's a difference of
backgrounds and which circles we move in :)

Regards,
Tom