[CrackMonkey] The right to bare legs

[Paul J Collins]

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Jennings <mej at valinux.com> writes:

    Michael> On Friday, 25 August 2000, at 01:17:05 (+0100),
    Michael> Paul J Collins wrote:

    >> I'm not a zealot.  I am someone who realises that "open source"
    >> is a distraction, and a term that is more open to
    >> misinterpretation that the supposedly confusing term "free
    >> software".

    Michael> "Open Source" is not a distraction at all, and from a
    Michael> business standpoint, it is vastly superior to the term
    Michael> "free software."  Note how acceptance of Open Source
    Michael> software in the world of business has increased
    Michael> drastically since the term was coined.  This is at least

Whether businesses use free software or not is of no consequence to me.

    Michael> due in part to an increased understanding by businesses
    Michael> of how Open Source works, and *that* is due in part to
    Michael> the term's coinage.

    Michael> And don't even think of referring me to that
    Michael> free-software-for-freedom page at gnu.org.  I've read it
    Michael> several times.  It's mostly crap.

I disagree with that assessment.

    Michael> Anyone who spends any time at all reading the OSD will
    Michael> understand that it's really about preserving the freedom
    Michael> of the user through open code and open development.  It's
    Michael> no accident that the Debian FSG and the OSD are nearly
    Michael> identical.

As you said below, that's because the first version of the OSD is the
DFSG with a few edits.

    >> That's why "open source" is so insidious.  It is easy to write
    >> a definition that encompasses anything you like.

    Michael> They didn't write a definition in an attempt to encompass
    Michael> something insidious.  The OSD was refined from the DFSG.

I said the term itself is insidious, not what it encompasses.

    Michael> If you're saying that the FSG is insidious, that's
    Michael> another argument entirely.

See above.

    Michael> The definition of "Open Source" comes directly from the
    Michael> Debian definition of "Free Software," so when you insult
    Michael> one, you insult the other.  I find this amusing.

I don't have a problem with any "open source" that is free software.
I don't have a problem with the definition.  It is the term and its
use that I object to.

-- 
Paul Collins <sneakums at eircom.net> - - - - - [ A&P,a&f ]
 GPG: 0A49 49A9 2932 0EE5 89B2  9EE0 3B65 7154 8131 1BCD
"Love so deep, kills you in your sleep.  It's true!"