www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       10/01/31 21:43:51

Modified files:
        philosophy     : open-source-misses-the-point.html 

Log message:
        Cite tivoization as difference between FS and OS criteria.  Mention
        how "open source" has been stretched into near-meaninglessness
        by application to things other than software.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.31&r2=1.32

Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html,v
retrieving revision 1.31
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -b -r1.31 -r1.32
--- open-source-misses-the-point.html   15 Oct 2009 12:43:00 -0000      1.31
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.html   31 Jan 2010 21:43:44 -0000      1.32
@@ -107,14 +107,16 @@
 problem&mdash;and this includes &ldquo;open source
 software.&rdquo;</p>
 
-<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>official
-definition of &ldquo;open source software&rdquo;</a> (which is 
-published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was
-derived indirectly from our criteria for free software.  It is not the
-same; it is a little looser in some respects, so open source
-supporters have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably
-restrictive of the users.  Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our
-definition in practice.</p>
+<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>official definition of
+&ldquo;open source software&rdquo;</a> (which is published by the Open
+Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
+indirectly from our criteria for free software.  It is not the same;
+it is a little looser in some respects, so the open source people have
+accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
+Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our
+criterion also considers whether a device will let you <em>run</em>
+your modified version of the program.  Nonetheless, their definition
+agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
 
 <p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source
 software&rdquo;&mdash;and the one most people seem to think it
@@ -158,10 +160,18 @@
 <p>Another misunderstanding of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is the idea
 that it means &ldquo;not using the GNU GPL.&rdquo; This tends to
 accompany another misunderstanding that &ldquo;free software&rdquo;
-means &ldquo;GPL-covered software.&rdquo; These are equally mistaken,
-since the GNU GPL is accepted as an open source license and most of
+means &ldquo;GPL-covered software.&rdquo; These are both mistaken,
+since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of
 the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.</p>
 
+<p>The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; has been further stretched by
+its application to other activities, such as government, education,
+and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where
+criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent.  The only
+thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
+people to participate.  They stretch the term so far that it only means
+&ldquo;participatory&rdquo;.</p>
+
 <h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&hellip;but Not Always</h3>
 
 <p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
@@ -345,7 +355,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/10/15 12:43:00 $
+$Date: 2010/01/31 21:43:44 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>