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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=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 01a44d08 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6611A9D6D6; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:39:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AAC9D6C3; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:39:34 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 37D529D6C3; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:39:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: from frieza.hoshinet.org (ks3374089.kimsufi.com [37.187.103.66]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 711D69D6C0 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:39:23 +1000 (AEST) Received: by frieza.hoshinet.org (Postfix, from userid 1005) id 46CD01C8C79B; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:39:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frieza.hoshinet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3DE1C8C798; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:39:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:39:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Nickolas X-X-Sender: nicci@frieza.hoshinet.org To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" In-Reply-To: <20200218164031.GA147128@mit.edu> Message-ID: 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> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (BSF 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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" 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.