On 09 Apr 1998 13:15:21 EDT, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Products that are DFSG compliant are Open Source compliant, and vice > versa. It's two names for the same thing. Suits understand `Open > Source' better than they understand `Free Software'; they have a > suspicion of anything that has `Free' in the name. On the opposite > side, hackers understand `Free' better than `Open' because they > associate `Open' with abominations like `The Open Group' that aren't > open at all.
While I recognize that the Open Group is a commercial venture, I think the issue of `Free Software' is a much greater burden than the `Open' moniker, and any typical week's subscription to debian-devel should dispell any thoughts otherwise. Maybe hackers don't understand `Free Software' so well after all: <http://www.opensource.org/history.html>: [Re: `Open Source' (vs. `Free Software')] "By mid-February the terminological switch was gaining momentum in the hacker community, with feedback running about 70% for it, spirited debate, and a level of awareness about the underlying issues that we found very gratifying." I think DFSG sounds crufty and legalistic while Open Source sounds clear and concise. Further, Open Source seems to be garnering recognition in the media and it seems wrong for Debian not to receive any of that recognition when Open Source is directly founded on DFSG. Therefore I think Debian deserves to both have a clear, concise software policy name (i.e. replace DFSG with Open Source) well as benefit from the recognition of Open Source. OTOH I have no experience with Debian politics, there is a freeze in effect, a constitution is being hammered out, and there seems to be no momentum here for such a proposal, so I should probably stop wasting bandwidth. -- David Stern ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://weber.u.washington.edu/~kotsya [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
