- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Special: Defending Openness
“Free" and “open" are such small words. And yet for hackers, they are among the most charged in the English language. The great debate over whether to use the term “free software" - with the emphasis on freedom – or “open source", with the emphasis on practicality, is alive and kicking furiously even today. But it would be a tragedy if this factionalism obscured a profound threat to the very concept of openness. The background is the growing battle over the office suite. Until recently, Microsoft Office held undisputed sway over this sector, and alternative options from Lotus or Corel made absolutely no difference to its dominant market share. Even the appearance of OpenOffice.org 1.0 four years ago had little impact. But things have changed dramatically with the release of OpenOffice.org 2.0. Not so much because of the software – even though it is a big improvement over the useful but unspectacular version 1.0 – but because of the file format it employs. The formalization of the OpenDocument Format ODF by the international standards body OASIS has transformed the office suite landscape. For the first time, there is now an official standard for office application file formats, and one that is completely open and vendor-neutral. Where before rival office suites merely presented proprietary alternatives to Microsoft's own closed standards, ODF allows manufacturers to rally round a common standard. The list of those already supporting ODF is already quite impressive, and the roll-call seems certain to grow. And the more that join, the more powerful the standard becomes. The power of that common standard can be seen in the fact that it was chosen over Microsoft's own office formats by Massachusetts in a by-now famous decision. The shock of that event for friends of proprietary lock-in can be gauged by the violence of the response – a violence that ultimately led to the resignation of Peter Quinn, the man who was behind the move in the first place. It is not hard to see why there should be such a tempest. If the Massachusetts decision is enacted, other US states may follow. In Europe, the European Union is already looking seriously at making ODF its first official standard for office documents. Once the dominoes start tumbling, Microsoft knows that one of its core products could be seriously threatened, and with it the company's profits, share price and - ultimately - future. Microsoft's extreme concern at this turn of events explains its sudden decision to submit its own office formats as official standards – although the terms of reference for the process are not quite what anybody else would think of as a normal standards ratification process. In this way, it presumably hopes to match ODF's claim that it is a true, de jure not de facto, standard. Even more dangerously, the company has named these new formats Microsoft Office Open XML. Note the word “open" here: Microsoft is using a term which hitherto stood in stark opposition to everything the company represents. By employing “open" in this way – however apparently minor or unimportant – it has begun a subtle process of devaluation.
All it needs to do is to drop in the word “open" at various points in its product line, and the concept starts to lose the force it currently enjoys, and all the “real" opens – open source, OpenDocument etc. – are diminished as a result. In fact, this process is already underway: Microsoft has announced the “Open Packaging Conventions", which form part of its PDF rival XPS (XML Paper Specification). To add insult to injury, Microsoft hammers home its new passion for “openness" by explaining: The Open Packaging Conventions use open technologies such as XML and the ZIP archive file format and are used in XPS Documents as well as the new Office Open XML Formats. If Microsoft is allowed to continue with this ploy, “open" will gradually become just another generic marketing term like “leading-edge" or “user-friendly": a term that everyone uses and which no longer has any real value. This is potentially an extremely damaging strategy, since it is hard to put back the power in a word once it has been drained away. Perhaps the only response is constant and vocal rejection of anything the Microsoft brands as “open" unless it is truly and completely open, through a detailed repudiation of any false claims that it makes in this regard. But this must be done now, not after Microsoft has muddied the linguistic waters to such an extent that “open" no longer means anything. If this threat is not dealt with swiftly and effectively, the main use of the word “open" in computing one day might be by anthropologists and historians as a quaint label for a sub-grouping in the increasingly marginalized hacker culture. Glyn Moody writes about open source at opendotdotdot.blogspot.com |
Comments (24)
agreed
Truth in labeling
Or is it "libeling"? Personally i refuse to dignify this deception by repeating the scam. Since the specification was submitted to ECMA for consideration, I always refer to MSXML as MSECMAXML.
The MS plot to confuse and deceive goes back to the days when the EU was arguing with Microsoft, IBM and Sun about an Open Standards XML file format requirement. Microsoft insisted that MSXML was "open enough". The EU said no way. When the EU tried to convince Microsoft to adopt the OASIS Open Office XML file format, Microsoft countered with the complaint that they couldn't adopt a file format named after one of their competitors application suite - OpenOffice.org. So the EU came to the OASIS Open Office XML TC and asked that the name be changed. They even went so far as to point out that during the Valoris Groups three year study the term used in the reports to describe a fictional Open Standards XML file format was that of "OpenDocument".
The OASIS Open Office XML TC acted on the EU request and decided to change the official name from Open Office XML to OpenDocument.
Microsoft soon after countered with their own name change of MSXML to Office Open XML.
Confused? Of course. Microsoft first complains about the problems of adapting to a file format named "Open Office XML",and as soon as their complaint affects a change, takes the name "Office Open XML" for their own.
If this stuff didn't really happen no one in their right mind would believe it. In the aftermath of the deliciously named "anti trust" trial, where Microsoft was found to be guilty of some of the most reprehensible and illegal business practices known, one would have thought that this company would have some concern about how to regain the public's trust. No way! Microsoft remains an unrepentant unapologetic recidivist reprobate. You can't even say that about Enron.
As a USA Corporation Microsoft's deceptive use of the word "Open" might be something of interest to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)- once they start "advertising" a product with MSECMAXML.
What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers like Microsoft? Here are few FAQs from the FTC.gov web site:
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
* advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; * advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and * advertisements cannot be unfair.
What makes an advertisement deceptive? According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
* is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and * is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
What makes an advertisement unfair? According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC's Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if:
* it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and * it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.
How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive? A typical inquiry follows these steps:
* The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.
* The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of material claims are representations about a product's performance, features, safety, price, or effectiveness.
* The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.
What kind of evidence must a company have to support the claims in its ads?
* Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims. A "reasonable basis" means objective evidence that supports the claim.
thanks for the timely article Glyn, ~ge~
The MS plot to confuse and deceive goes back to the days when the EU was arguing with Microsoft, IBM and Sun about an Open Standards XML file format requirement. Microsoft insisted that MSXML was "open enough". The EU said no way. When the EU tried to convince Microsoft to adopt the OASIS Open Office XML file format, Microsoft countered with the complaint that they couldn't adopt a file format named after one of their competitors application suite - OpenOffice.org. So the EU came to the OASIS Open Office XML TC and asked that the name be changed. They even went so far as to point out that during the Valoris Groups three year study the term used in the reports to describe a fictional Open Standards XML file format was that of "OpenDocument".
The OASIS Open Office XML TC acted on the EU request and decided to change the official name from Open Office XML to OpenDocument.
Microsoft soon after countered with their own name change of MSXML to Office Open XML.
Confused? Of course. Microsoft first complains about the problems of adapting to a file format named "Open Office XML",and as soon as their complaint affects a change, takes the name "Office Open XML" for their own.
If this stuff didn't really happen no one in their right mind would believe it. In the aftermath of the deliciously named "anti trust" trial, where Microsoft was found to be guilty of some of the most reprehensible and illegal business practices known, one would have thought that this company would have some concern about how to regain the public's trust. No way! Microsoft remains an unrepentant unapologetic recidivist reprobate. You can't even say that about Enron.
As a USA Corporation Microsoft's deceptive use of the word "Open" might be something of interest to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)- once they start "advertising" a product with MSECMAXML.
What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers like Microsoft? Here are few FAQs from the FTC.gov web site:
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
* advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; * advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and * advertisements cannot be unfair.
What makes an advertisement deceptive? According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
* is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and * is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
What makes an advertisement unfair? According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC's Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if:
* it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and * it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.
How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive? A typical inquiry follows these steps:
* The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.
* The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of material claims are representations about a product's performance, features, safety, price, or effectiveness.
* The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.
What kind of evidence must a company have to support the claims in its ads?
* Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims. A "reasonable basis" means objective evidence that supports the claim.
thanks for the timely article Glyn, ~ge~
Microsoft remains an unrepentant unapologetic recidivist reprobate. You can't even say that about Enron.
============
Microsoft has the luxury of having their users where they want them: completely dependent on them for all things on the desktop. Whereas Enron was fooling investors who could do the equities market a favor by cutting and running the typical Microserf is bound to the Microsoft fiefdom in perpetuity.
I do know a lot of Microsoft users and "programmers" who are starting to see the problems that Microsoft dependency creates but they have an unbelievable amount of FUD in their own minds that is difficult to overcome.
I believe the Open Source Initiative (OSI) should take Microsoft to court over their misuse of the term "Open". Their web page http://www.opensource.org/ says:
Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software certification mark and program.
They have the terms 'Open Source' and 'OSI Certified' trademarked. I think they should trademark 'Open Standards' and 'Open Specifications' soon before Microsoft muddies them up!!!
Microsoft has the luxury of having their users where they want them: completely dependent on them for all things on the desktop. Whereas Enron was fooling investors who could do the equities market a favor by cutting and running the typical Microserf is bound to the Microsoft fiefdom in perpetuity.
I do know a lot of Microsoft users and "programmers" who are starting to see the problems that Microsoft dependency creates but they have an unbelievable amount of FUD in their own minds that is difficult to overcome.
I believe the Open Source Initiative (OSI) should take Microsoft to court over their misuse of the term "Open". Their web page http://www.opensource.org/ says:
Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software certification mark and program.
They have the terms 'Open Source' and 'OSI Certified' trademarked. I think they should trademark 'Open Standards' and 'Open Specifications' soon before Microsoft muddies them up!!!
Gary, thanks for the comments and for sharing with us your unrivalled knowledge of the background to the OpenDocument saga.
It is precisely the kind of information that you give here (and elsewhere) that I had in mind when I spoke of "a detailed repudiation of any false claims" Microsoft makes in this area.
It is precisely the kind of information that you give here (and elsewhere) that I had in mind when I spoke of "a detailed repudiation of any false claims" Microsoft makes in this area.
garyedwards:
Wow! I _thought_ I knew the history of OpenDocument. The information you provide goes farther back and lays the foundation for current events. Thanks for the enlightenment.
(This is just another example of how true openness can leverage the knowledge and abilities of many.)
(This is just another example of how true openness can leverage the knowledge and abilities of many.)
Open (c)
If you think it's bad now, just wait until Microsoft copyrights the term "Open" like they did "Windows". Don't laugh. With the political pull they have at this point, it could easily happen. Then products like OpenOffice will have to change their names to avoid copyright infringment. And "Open" will have the same generic blah as anything else from Redmond.
I think you mean trademark instead of copyright, but your point is well taken. Look at how far MS went to find a way to _force_ Lindows to change its name. They engaged in a global court hopping scheme that few businesses could afford to fight.
Microsoft is already attempting to blur and diminish the term "open", as Mr. Moody aptly points out. MS "Office Open" vs. OpenOffice.org and OpenDocument. They will likely continue to get the term "open" into as many trademarks as they can, to continue this blurring and add to "consumer" confusion.
Microsoft is already attempting to blur and diminish the term "open", as Mr. Moody aptly points out. MS "Office Open" vs. OpenOffice.org and OpenDocument. They will likely continue to get the term "open" into as many trademarks as they can, to continue this blurring and add to "consumer" confusion.
open vs. free
It seems to me that the term "open" is becoming even more meaningless and ambiguous than the word "free". I'm sure though that if OpenDocument was called FreeDocument instead or if open source just stayed "Free Software" Microsoft would probably try to devalue the term "free" too.
However, one might wonder.. what if the whole "open source" brand got a little over itself? I mean, what if it became in a way too much of a "buzzword" to be taken seriously anymore? The OSI pushed it mostly as a *brand name* before anything else afterall.
I of course don't agree a movement has to have a brand name, at least if you think of it as a movement for human rights for computer users. (Well.. "open source" isn't presenting itself as that either.)
Just some thoughts.
Thanks Daniel
However, one might wonder.. what if the whole "open source" brand got a little over itself? I mean, what if it became in a way too much of a "buzzword" to be taken seriously anymore? The OSI pushed it mostly as a *brand name* before anything else afterall.
I of course don't agree a movement has to have a brand name, at least if you think of it as a movement for human rights for computer users. (Well.. "open source" isn't presenting itself as that either.)
Just some thoughts.
Thanks Daniel
Daniel,
I've seen the concept of open standards for longer than I'd like to admit. I worked with software from the old OSF as a tech writer at IBM. I don't think "open" needs to be replaced with free. That's a stretch IMHO.
Compared to free software, proprietary code swamps us in usage. As long as that's reality, open seems like a good first step.
I still know people who think Linux is an air conditioner company. So, maybe saying GNU/Linux isn't such a bad idea.
I've seen the concept of open standards for longer than I'd like to admit. I worked with software from the old OSF as a tech writer at IBM. I don't think "open" needs to be replaced with free. That's a stretch IMHO.
Compared to free software, proprietary code swamps us in usage. As long as that's reality, open seems like a good first step.
I still know people who think Linux is an air conditioner company. So, maybe saying GNU/Linux isn't such a bad idea.
Something can be open without being free. We might have all the specifications needed to implement something using a given format. But if we don't also have the rights to do that implementation, then it's not free. What patents might apply to technology utilized in a format which Microsoft chooses to release for all to read the specifications? Remember that GIF was a format and LZW was patented. GIF was open. LZW was not free.
Ultimately, we need both. "Free Open Source Softwae" has both. It might be nice for a like term for format specifications. But in the mean time, I do think we know what is really meant when someone says "an open document format".
Ultimately, we need both. "Free Open Source Softwae" has both. It might be nice for a like term for format specifications. But in the mean time, I do think we know what is really meant when someone says "an open document format".
I agree definitely with the term "Free Open Source Software" for those who just don't want yet to choose between the two terms or don't want to identify themselves with either philosophy.
That said, I am a supporter of the Free Software movement, not Open Source, because I think it is an ethical issue beyond other issues and because I also think we shouldn't use a misleading term just because it sounds better and might attract more people in. Our goal, at least those of the Free Software movement is to teach people the value of freedom and make it possible for them to be free by writing Free Software, not merely increase the marketshare of GNU/Linux.
Well, that's where I stand at least.
That said, I am a supporter of the Free Software movement, not Open Source, because I think it is an ethical issue beyond other issues and because I also think we shouldn't use a misleading term just because it sounds better and might attract more people in. Our goal, at least those of the Free Software movement is to teach people the value of freedom and make it possible for them to be free by writing Free Software, not merely increase the marketshare of GNU/Linux.
Well, that's where I stand at least.
Daniel,
I would characterize myself as a supporter of the free software movement.
I feel that the concept of open-source misleads people. I'm also pragmatic about the state of the world. I don't believe the concept of "Open" has evil intentions. I think people who embrace the open concept are oblivious to the argument.
So, in my pragmatic approach, I think the effort to make software open was a decent step for proprietary to have gone.
Now for my speech about open source which I delineate from free software. The term open-source is abusive. OSI gave the CDDL an OK. That demonstrates their ignorance and caused Sun to run off at the mouth believing they were an open-source company in terms of offering free software. They had bought their own BS. Or to put it another way, they believe their own lies.
Also, companies claim to be open-source like Autodesk. They denigrate the notion of free software with the term open source. I feel the same for CA. they claim they're a Linux company. But, I don't think they get it at all.
I heard CA's Sam Greenblatt make a presentation and if they're a Linux company, the George Washington was a general in the British Army fight the Colonies. But they're open source because the gave away the failing Ingres Database
I don't think understanding and dealing with reality means one has failed in their embrace of open source software. if you wish to take a stand, you have my support. You've never had anything but my support.
I choose another approach. That's where we differ.
I would characterize myself as a supporter of the free software movement.
I feel that the concept of open-source misleads people. I'm also pragmatic about the state of the world. I don't believe the concept of "Open" has evil intentions. I think people who embrace the open concept are oblivious to the argument.
So, in my pragmatic approach, I think the effort to make software open was a decent step for proprietary to have gone.
Now for my speech about open source which I delineate from free software. The term open-source is abusive. OSI gave the CDDL an OK. That demonstrates their ignorance and caused Sun to run off at the mouth believing they were an open-source company in terms of offering free software. They had bought their own BS. Or to put it another way, they believe their own lies.
Also, companies claim to be open-source like Autodesk. They denigrate the notion of free software with the term open source. I feel the same for CA. they claim they're a Linux company. But, I don't think they get it at all.
I heard CA's Sam Greenblatt make a presentation and if they're a Linux company, the George Washington was a general in the British Army fight the Colonies. But they're open source because the gave away the failing Ingres Database
I don't think understanding and dealing with reality means one has failed in their embrace of open source software. if you wish to take a stand, you have my support. You've never had anything but my support.
I choose another approach. That's where we differ.
I'm not sure if I fully understand your comment Tom.
To give it a shot, I'd say you wanted to express that you primarily do support Free Software as well as its ethical principles, but still think that initiating "open source", although not necessarily the best, was a step up to getting rid of proprietary software even if the very term "open source" is so easily abused by the corporate world.
Now, I don't necessarily consider the concept of open source evil either. It just focuses on the perceived outcome of creating Free Software, which is better software, and call it a (superior) software development methodology. We could say that they put their focus on the result instead of the cause and the cause is (in both contexts of the word) freedom.
I disagree with Open Source supporters because I think that the cause is more important than its results. Freedom is more important than the better software that may get created because of it.
Talking about branding, if "open source" was used as a term to describe the same Free Software ideology of GNU instead of the rather apolitical one, it may even be acceptable as a positive buzzword working for computing freedom (even if still vulnerable to abuse). It however never was *just* about changing the term. It was about changing the whole philosophy shifting focus to something else entirely and away from where it initially was.
It is probably true however that some today use the term "open source" in context of describing freedom and ethical issues which is probably the result of the increasing vagueness of the term (it starts to mean too many things). However, even many of those who do use it in such context often don't understand the whole issue properly. They don't yet see the danger of mixing proprietary and Free Software for example. It's like they got parts of both philosophies and have settled somewhere in the middle. They are not apolitical, but don't have a full understanding of the political issues either. They still don't help further the cause of freedom as much as they could.
So when "open source" is an increasingly vague, confusing and devalued term in addition to its own inherent flaw of describing only the availability of the source code and not the whole set of essential rights/requirements, it seems to me that the term "Free Software" could actually end up being more applicable and descriptive than "open source" while "libre software" may be perfect (both do more to further the true cause than "open source") :)
Thanks Daniel
To give it a shot, I'd say you wanted to express that you primarily do support Free Software as well as its ethical principles, but still think that initiating "open source", although not necessarily the best, was a step up to getting rid of proprietary software even if the very term "open source" is so easily abused by the corporate world.
Now, I don't necessarily consider the concept of open source evil either. It just focuses on the perceived outcome of creating Free Software, which is better software, and call it a (superior) software development methodology. We could say that they put their focus on the result instead of the cause and the cause is (in both contexts of the word) freedom.
I disagree with Open Source supporters because I think that the cause is more important than its results. Freedom is more important than the better software that may get created because of it.
Talking about branding, if "open source" was used as a term to describe the same Free Software ideology of GNU instead of the rather apolitical one, it may even be acceptable as a positive buzzword working for computing freedom (even if still vulnerable to abuse). It however never was *just* about changing the term. It was about changing the whole philosophy shifting focus to something else entirely and away from where it initially was.
It is probably true however that some today use the term "open source" in context of describing freedom and ethical issues which is probably the result of the increasing vagueness of the term (it starts to mean too many things). However, even many of those who do use it in such context often don't understand the whole issue properly. They don't yet see the danger of mixing proprietary and Free Software for example. It's like they got parts of both philosophies and have settled somewhere in the middle. They are not apolitical, but don't have a full understanding of the political issues either. They still don't help further the cause of freedom as much as they could.
So when "open source" is an increasingly vague, confusing and devalued term in addition to its own inherent flaw of describing only the availability of the source code and not the whole set of essential rights/requirements, it seems to me that the term "Free Software" could actually end up being more applicable and descriptive than "open source" while "libre software" may be perfect (both do more to further the true cause than "open source") :)
Thanks Daniel
Lol Tom,
You just 'mentioned' Autodesk in the same sentience as open, and, I found myself automatically foaming at the mouth. If you'd also included something like 'Engineering' or 'tool'... well, I probably would have lost it ;-). Not only is that company one of the worst offenders against open anything, but, they are one of the least creative programs in existance. Must have set Engineering back at least 50 years... Their logo should be 'Every day, making Engineering a little more propritary and obtuse'.
You just 'mentioned' Autodesk in the same sentience as open, and, I found myself automatically foaming at the mouth. If you'd also included something like 'Engineering' or 'tool'... well, I probably would have lost it ;-). Not only is that company one of the worst offenders against open anything, but, they are one of the least creative programs in existance. Must have set Engineering back at least 50 years... Their logo should be 'Every day, making Engineering a little more propritary and obtuse'.
Daniel,
I would say you did mostly get the gist of my statement with this exception, I don't think initiating open source was a step up to getting rid of proprietary software nor to I consider it acceptable. I think if Eric et al would have just left it alone, we'd be much better off. GNU/Linux would have done as well as it has, maybe better and the other camps could have violated the GPL or embraced the principles.
I think people would make a more distinct comparison between proprietary and free and wouldn't live on the fringes. That would have created a clearer choice.
I view free software like I do voting day at the polls. I can vote for either a democrat or republican because one of them will win. I can vote for a Libertarian or an independent and I know they won't win. So, I wind up voting for what I consider the least harmful.
Then, it's up to me to attempt to make changes in the established system.
And we agree again. However, I do feel like the people who exhibit the traits of freedom and ethics will "get it" eventually as the term gets abused more and more. I see a problem since advocates rarely get into the sales channel to see how it is already massively abused.
I would say you did mostly get the gist of my statement with this exception, I don't think initiating open source was a step up to getting rid of proprietary software nor to I consider it acceptable. I think if Eric et al would have just left it alone, we'd be much better off. GNU/Linux would have done as well as it has, maybe better and the other camps could have violated the GPL or embraced the principles.
I think people would make a more distinct comparison between proprietary and free and wouldn't live on the fringes. That would have created a clearer choice.
I view free software like I do voting day at the polls. I can vote for either a democrat or republican because one of them will win. I can vote for a Libertarian or an independent and I know they won't win. So, I wind up voting for what I consider the least harmful.
Then, it's up to me to attempt to make changes in the established system.
Quoting:It is probably true however that some today use the term "open source" in context of describing freedom and ethical issues which is probably the result of the increasing vagueness of the term (it starts to mean too many things). However, even many of those who do use it in such context often don't understand the whole issue properly.
And we agree again. However, I do feel like the people who exhibit the traits of freedom and ethics will "get it" eventually as the term gets abused more and more. I see a problem since advocates rarely get into the sales channel to see how it is already massively abused.
jimf: I may have mentioned it, but I used it as an example of an abuser of the term.
Tom,
I got the meaning of the post, and, the example was valid. My response to the word as an Engineer was purely pablovian :D
I got the meaning of the post, and, the example was valid. My response to the word as an Engineer was purely pablovian :D
Jim, ROFL. You got me.
Tom, then we mostly agree as it seems.
You mean you'd vote for lesser of the two evils, just to make sure the bigger doesn't win?
That certainly makes sense, but if it is an analogy I think it hardly fits the current Free Software vs. Open Source vs. proprietary software situation. Between "Open Source" and proprietary software Open Source is definitely the lesser "evil", but I wouldn't vote for either if there is a choice of Free Software (philosophy) which I believe is not evil at all. Here you are not limited to one mandate and practically forced to make the best of that mandate period for your country. In reality it would be the best choice to vote for Free Software and increase its chance of winning, ultimately. Anything else would only be more harmful than not for the cause you believe in.
Yes, I fully agree. I was introduced to the whole FOSS thing mostly through the term "Open Source", but what really attracted me from the beginning were its ethical principles. As soon as I've read enough of GNU.org and RMS's speeches and therefore understood the difference and the importance of identifying with the philosophy I care for the most I started using the term Free Software and not Open Source to differentiate my position.
I think many of others who are really attracted to the ethical principles of it will end up the same.
Thanks Daniel
Quoting:I view free software like I do voting day at the polls. I can vote for either a democrat or republican because one of them will win. I can vote for a Libertarian or an independent and I know they won't win. So, I wind up voting for what I consider the least harmful
You mean you'd vote for lesser of the two evils, just to make sure the bigger doesn't win?
That certainly makes sense, but if it is an analogy I think it hardly fits the current Free Software vs. Open Source vs. proprietary software situation. Between "Open Source" and proprietary software Open Source is definitely the lesser "evil", but I wouldn't vote for either if there is a choice of Free Software (philosophy) which I believe is not evil at all. Here you are not limited to one mandate and practically forced to make the best of that mandate period for your country. In reality it would be the best choice to vote for Free Software and increase its chance of winning, ultimately. Anything else would only be more harmful than not for the cause you believe in.
Quoting: However, I do feel like the people who exhibit the traits of freedom and ethics will "get it" eventually as the term gets abused more and more.
Yes, I fully agree. I was introduced to the whole FOSS thing mostly through the term "Open Source", but what really attracted me from the beginning were its ethical principles. As soon as I've read enough of GNU.org and RMS's speeches and therefore understood the difference and the importance of identifying with the philosophy I care for the most I started using the term Free Software and not Open Source to differentiate my position.
I think many of others who are really attracted to the ethical principles of it will end up the same.
Thanks Daniel
Tom:
Stepping into political theory for the moment (not politics as such :) ).
> I can vote for either a democrat or republican because one of them will win. I can vote for a Libertarian or an independent and I know they won't win. So, I wind up voting for what I consider the least harmful.
I know that my vote will not make the difference in who gets elected either way, so I'm perfectly comfortable in "throwing away" my vote. And since, from a libertarian perspective, there is no effective difference between the two major parties any more, it really doesn't matter to me who wins. So I usually vote third party. If either of the two parties would return to their small government roots, I would vote for them, but not until. If the choice was actually only between the Republicans and the Democrats, I'd simply stay home.
Stepping into political theory for the moment (not politics as such :) ).
> I can vote for either a democrat or republican because one of them will win. I can vote for a Libertarian or an independent and I know they won't win. So, I wind up voting for what I consider the least harmful.
I know that my vote will not make the difference in who gets elected either way, so I'm perfectly comfortable in "throwing away" my vote. And since, from a libertarian perspective, there is no effective difference between the two major parties any more, it really doesn't matter to me who wins. So I usually vote third party. If either of the two parties would return to their small government roots, I would vote for them, but not until. If the choice was actually only between the Republicans and the Democrats, I'd simply stay home.
I prefer the term FLOSS, but which term I use depends upon the context.
FLOSS -- Free Libre Open Source Software -- encompasses the philosophy and the familiar, but redundant, "Open Source" term.
Besides, 'FLOSS' lends itself to such catchy phrases as: FLOSS to get the bad stuff out! FLOSS to prevent rot! FLOSS prevents diseased software.
It provides an opening to talk about FSF, GNU and the importance of the 4 freedoms.
FLOSS -- Free Libre Open Source Software -- encompasses the philosophy and the familiar, but redundant, "Open Source" term.
Besides, 'FLOSS' lends itself to such catchy phrases as: FLOSS to get the bad stuff out! FLOSS to prevent rot! FLOSS prevents diseased software.
It provides an opening to talk about FSF, GNU and the importance of the 4 freedoms.
"Open Source" has a very specific meaning -- just search for "open source" at google. The first hit -- at least right now -- is http://www.opensource.org , The Open Source Initiative (OSI). Code is considered "open source" if it is released under a license approved the OSI.
Indeed, "Open Source" is a trademark of OSI.
Indeed, "Open Source" is a trademark of OSI.
No, it's not a trademark. OSI tried that early on and failed.
That opensource.org comes up at google as first result doesn't mean that open source term does not have an increasingly vague meaning (and by that I mean it has an increasingly meaningless meaning :).
It is being (ab)used for too many things and people start considering too many things to be "open source" and that is diluting the term and it's meaning. And what can OSI do about that? It is in fact themselves that layed the foundation for that to happen. They were the ones who wanted to come up with an appealing buzzword to slap on their "business friendly" philosophy.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
|
|
ODF is truly open because a third party committee controls the standard like http, html etc.
this is how I refer to ODF - it is another industry protocol like the aforementioned and microsoft's isn't.
glad microsoft doesn't own http or html.