Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Sep 2006 13:59 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Linspire In a move that some may have sensed was coming, Eric S. Raymond - one of the co-founders of the open-source movement - has joined the Freespire Leadership Board. Raymond believes desktop Linux is entering into a critical period, noting that historically, users have shifted operating systems during periods of fundamental changes in hardware platforms. He believes the PC vendors' embrace of 64-bit computing will provide desktop Linux a unique window of opportunity, which if missed, may not come along again for many years.
Thread beginning with comment 166262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Clarification
by sbergman27 on Thu 28th Sep 2006 00:18 UTC in reply to "Clarification"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

"""The term "Open Source" was a reaction to the less business palatable term "Free Software", being touted by RMS."""

Just a small nit. The term "Open Source" was also a reaction to the confusing and ambiguous term "Free Software", being touted by RMS; A problem which has continued to exist to this day.

This is why I use the term "Open Source". It's clear and to the point.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Clarification
by pinky on Thu 28th Sep 2006 13:39 in reply to "RE: Clarification"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>he term "Open Source" was also a reaction to the confusing and ambiguous term "Free Software",

Only that "Open Source" is much more ambiguous than "Free Software".

That's why I use the term "Free Software". It's clear and to the point.

Let me explain why?
"Open Source" what does you can get from this words? Nothing more than "the sources are open" but this isn't by far enough for the 4 freedoms or the 10 points of the Open Source definition so you have to interpret a lot into the words "open" and "source" to come to the 10 points of the Open Source definition or the the 4 freedoms and if you want you can interprete a lot of other things in the words "open" and "source".

On the other side we have the term "Free Software". Yes, in english the term "free" is ambiguous but one of the ambiguous meanings of "free" is "freedom". So "free" as in freedom is a meaning of "free" everyone can get from the normal linguistic usage. And if you have the right meaning of "free" than "Free Software" together with the 4 freedoms makes perfect sense both logically and linguistic something you can't say from "Open Source" and the 10 points of the definition.
There is another important point. You can translate "Free Software" in many other languages and in this languages "free" often isn't ambiguous. E.g. "logiciels libre" in French, here the term "logiciels libre" and the 4 freedoms makes perfect sens from the beginning and you have the advantage to talk to people in their own language.

"Free Software" have so much to offer:
- logical and linguistic sense of the words.
- shorter and easier definition to remember and understand.
- you can speak to the people in their own language.

So i think "Free Software" (and all its translations) is much better than "Open Source".

Edited 2006-09-28 13:56

Reply Parent Score: 2