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

[S11001001]

I prefer to look at it this way: When you are talking about the SOFTWARE 
itself, what is produced by the projects, there is no difference. "The term 
``open source'' software is used by some people to mean more or less the same 
thing as free software.", according to 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html. Again, this refers to the 
product, not the project. In that respect, for many projects, it is quite clear.

However, whether a PROJECT is Free Software or `Open Source' depends on what 
philosophy that project subscribes to. The GNU Philosophy pages 
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/> paint a pretty good picture of the Free 
Software philosophy, and I think OSI <http://www.opensource.org/> can give the 
reader some idea of the differences in focus for `Open Source'. Sometimes, 
however, a project can end up in the gray area between Free Software and `Open 
Source', whereas there is no difference when dealing with the software itself.

i.e.,

DotGNU is a Free Software PROJECT, producing SOFTWARE that fits both terms.

Mozilla is an `Open Source' PROJECT, producing SOFTWARE that fits both terms.

Sometimes, however, it's easier to refer to the software by whatever term 
describes its project, because then you get an idea of the philosophy of the 
people behind the project implicitly. But it's all still Free Software.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Matthew C. Tedder wrote:
> Except that Free Software falls under the Open Source definition perfectly,
> so it is a specific kind of Open Source.

--
Eh, that's it, I guess.  No 300 million dollar unveiling event for this
kernel, I'm afraid, but you're still supposed to think of this as the
"happening of the century" (at least until the next kernel comes along).
        -- Linus, in the announcement for 1.3.27