From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 7864716e for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 385239D538; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:29:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507389D51C; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:29:21 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="dMC//jP3"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3CC2F9D51C; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:29:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-oi1-f179.google.com (mail-oi1-f179.google.com [209.85.167.179]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D110B9D51B for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:29:16 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-oi1-f179.google.com with SMTP id q81so21705678oig.0 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:29:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=k3mAURf8w9M4XE7GeEBY52SJDuY/v9mk+1VVrFZzrpQ=; b=dMC//jP3faXMqlsf0pAYUDwLB6h/oYtu5LPSjy6hucvFVWn9grVBuYeWTYUwNsnyDf ffrpeVcDLwpLG8Qx0TINjzZGHJio1lCVkIQiTSMbGn4fYhfEu9OhgTEWV80i1OS5UYgJ tjHkfRoQG0UzN3+ne3PNCsvXAlWljb4EIxhFC/PYT7wXsO+DyWR/YwmF8D31yPFhzssl c8+5Z1BQkMbt65t/AptGQAUx+f94CANJKS8FtLGokLanx24bIm6+gHlP/AQjkM1rhJNW HE+bhog9tFVwJUp1B4q7hmsq62cZW/q+L3Dk73GmP/83sOMns/+XeiN0mJFI9XFXEvrp Pftg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k3mAURf8w9M4XE7GeEBY52SJDuY/v9mk+1VVrFZzrpQ=; b=TA1+dejP+eWYp+7pyPns/AS/RWhKWE01V7Yx6RbM/JcD427fRdq/S0mCsw9cStNPfg 1L8TV0dMITeA2Z99AzzQE5nRX/Tr965CaRzDmoQF5QbHEM7ppkMbgN8NCpskchEo4Wh9 5gGYkUpH/lzmlDpDKE0JqHeAwn+9HALkhukV+iIUzjnvJZLm834EBLe6cl8JjIyZoNy5 VmSHo4TTJ932gHJm61UKlrqb3Dd7+FDBVmilItPbgoSZ/BecZXcvSR0xcMirxyHxwGHC iIRu6WpDsGFctCf4RFu5VDW6UKjM5ACsICD3rbfLALdweHyriyBvbogTpGxS5UhCP1jJ I0ZA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUHpEfSbhXqR21cswUtpUgFPPJQFK6UyX61shew31FuuVCaQQsf iA3CXwVnsIOJ68RRK+TrQo7b8I+631o7bboGlzc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwJU9t+b31A2fmArjGMkFKgQiJ7/6hLC4DxpHCFQFDjnwiJN5kDEBxBUcN/e51Jw26B4tAf4QgVeQ74hF+6jsw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:b39:: with SMTP id t25mr2598666oij.71.1582061356104; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:29:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a4a:a111:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:29:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <202002171520.01HFKqKi026749@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <4d252035b323b7583c5760c952d1982c@firemail.de> <202002171839.01HId8FT1358073@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <202002180017.01I0HI0I1415945@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <202002181528.01IFSogM030831@freefriends.org> <20200218164031.GA147128@mit.edu> From: Wesley Parish Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:29:15 +1300 Message-ID: To: Steve Nickolas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] man Macro Package and pdfmark X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" IIRC, there was a meeting of various (FOSS) luminaries in the early or mid-90s discussing rebranding Free Software (as in the FSF definition) as it was far too easily misinterpreted as meaning non-/anti-commercial. "Open Systems" had been around forever as a description of how the Unix "ecosystem" worked - you had a common set of APIs based on an originally common source base, and a common set of communication protocols, that worked on a wide array of computer systems, from real-time to supercomputers to mainframes and beyond. With all due respect to Clem Cole, I don't recall ever seeing "open source" used as a description of the Unix "ecosystem" during the 90s. It was in the air with the (minimal) charges Prentice-Hall charged for the Minix 0.x and 1.x disks and source; not dissimilar in that sense to the charges the FSF were charging for their tapes at the time. But all the Unix-y ads I can recall from the 90s talked about Open Systems, and never Open Source. That came in following Linux and *BSD radiation. But this is probably COFF's Harbour stuff ... Wesley Parish On 2/19/20, Steve Nickolas wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:43:06AM -0500, Steve Nickolas wrote: >>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020, arnold@skeeve.com wrote: >>> >>>> I don't like your use of "open source"; it is way out of skew with >>>> how it's used today. >>> >>> Wasn't it always *intended* to mean the same thing as "Free Software" ? >> >> No, although the differences in practice are small. "Free Software" >> was defined by Stallman as meeting his "Four Freedoms". Open >> Source(tm) was derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and >> while the set of licenses which meet the "Free Software" definition >> and those that meet the "Open Source(tm) definition mostly identical, >> there are a few exceptions. >> >> I refer folks to the Wikipedia entry for more details: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition >> >> It is true that the most of the people who use Open Source instead of >> Free Software are doing so mostly for branding reasons (e.g., Open >> Source is considered less likely to scare the suits), but technically >> they aren't the same. And it is certainly true that way AT&T >> distributed ditroff certainly isn't compliant with the Open Source >> Definition (OSD). >> >> Whether or not it meets Clem's "open source" (small o, small s), >> depends on his definition, which appears to be, "functionally, since >> everyone back then had an AT&T source license, we're all good". >> >> - Ted >> > > I always understood "open source" to mean this: you have access to the > code, you can share it, you can modify it, and any combination of the > above (including commercial exploitation; basically a restatement of > Stallman's freedoms in simpler words). > > As any phrase gets skewed to mean something other than it was intended, > when most people say "open source", they seem to only mean what I call > "source-available" - i.e., that there is *some* means by which a mere > mortal can gain access to the source, but there is no guarantee that they > can actually DO anything with the source without getting sued into > oblivion. I usually say if the code doesn't offer the necessary freedom > to make use of it. it's not "open source", it's just source. > > (For the record: I shifted from the GNU side to the BSD side of the debate > about 20 years ago. But I hold no ill will toward people on the GNU > side.) > > -uso. >