What is involved in an "Open Standard" truly being so?
Open Standard. 2 words that are being abused or distorted.. Either singly or as a "self qualifying " term. Open means what it says and says what it means. As should Standard. So any tangible work or expressible code should either pass or fail examination for those terms BOTH applying. Either a Standard is Open and meets every criteria for that term applying or it is misused. Either something is in compliance with a Standard that passes the first test for being Open or it is neither. Thus a majority of what we have been misled are Open Standards are not. Oren Beck "Profiting from any part of restricting access to the totality of what defines a standard should be ethically suspect. See the intents of GPL for good reasons to adopt such an ethics position."
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Oren Beck wrote:
Open Standard.
2 words that are being abused or distorted.. Either singly or as a "self qualifying " term.
Open means what it says and says what it means.
Actually, "Open" in "Open Source" is distorted. All it *really* implies is that the code is available. It does not imply that you have the legal "right" to redistribute it, modified or not. Hence why "Free software" not only predates "open source", but is more accurate given the correct definition of "free" (which is different from "free of charge", even if the latter is incorrectly abbreviated as "free" often).
On Oct 31, 2007 12:41 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Oren Beck wrote:
Open Standard.
2 words that are being abused or distorted.. Either singly or as a "self qualifying " term.
Open means what it says and says what it means.
Actually, "Open" in "Open Source" is distorted. All it *really* implies is that the code is available. It does not imply that you have the legal "right" to redistribute it, modified or not. Hence why "Free software" not only predates "open source", but is more accurate given the correct definition of "free" (which is different from "free of charge", even if the latter is incorrectly abbreviated as "free" often).
GPL is Free of Charge, and open source. GPL is in no way _free_. BSD variants/Public Domain is Free as in free to do what you want, and open source.
On Wednesday 14 November 2007, djgoku wrote:
On Oct 31, 2007 12:41 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Oren Beck wrote:
Open Standard.
2 words that are being abused or distorted.. Either singly or as a "self qualifying " term.
Open means what it says and says what it means.
Actually, "Open" in "Open Source" is distorted. All it *really* implies is that the code is available. It does not imply that you have the legal "right" to redistribute it, modified or not. Hence why "Free software" not only predates "open source", but is more accurate given the correct definition of "free" (which is different from "free of charge", even if the latter is incorrectly abbreviated as "free" often).
GPL is Free of Charge, and open source. GPL is in no way _free_.
BSD variants/Public Domain is Free as in free to do what you want, and open source.
GPL is free enough. BSD is "too" free in that it gives you the ability to be a jerk. Nor is it necessarily open source-- someone could easily license a binary under the BSD license.
On Nov 14, 2007 6:37 PM, djgoku <djgoku@gmail.com> wrote:
GPL is Free of Charge, and open source. GPL is in no way _free_.
Actually, GPL isn't "Free of charge." If you read the GPL, it clearly states that it is not necessarily free of charge, but it guarantees you the freedom to modify/use the software released under it however you wish (within the limitations set forth in the license that are needed to allow others the same freedom). "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Sorry, it annoys me when people talk about "Free software" and make it sound like there is no charge, ever.
On Nov 15, 2007 1:25 AM, Nathan Cerny <ncerny@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 6:37 PM, djgoku <djgoku@gmail.com> wrote:
GPL is Free of Charge, and open source. GPL is in no way _free_.
Actually, GPL isn't "Free of charge." If you read the GPL, it clearly states that it is not necessarily free of charge, but it guarantees you the freedom to modify/use the software released under it however you wish (within the limitations set forth in the license that are needed to allow others the same freedom).
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Sorry, it annoys me when people talk about "Free software" and make it sound like there is no charge, ever.
I don't know many GPL pay for programs, only one I can think of is x-chat for windows. It annoys me when people talk about GPL being _free_ when it is not. <quote> If you want to give your software away for free, use BSD. If you want to share your software, use the GPL. Software under the GPL is not free. Microsoft office is not free, you have to pay Microsoft money. The Borland developer tools are not free, you have to pay Borland (or whatever they're called these days). Lastly, software released under the GPL is not free: if you choose to copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it. This is how you pay for GPL code. This is a very egalitarian idea: I share my code, and if you use it in your own program, you pay me back by sharing your code or else you ask me to relicense the code under a different license to suit your needs (which was always possible). To make sure no-one can escape sharing (after all, this is how they're paying to use the software), GPL v3 requires the following (a) You make the source code available (b) You don't use patents to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing despite (a) (c) You don't use DRM to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing, like (a) The GPL is no more viral than any commercial license, the only difference is in how you pay to use the software. And it's always worth remembering that you don't have to share until you distribute the source-code (and as corporations are legal entities, you can give a copy to all your 1000-odd co-workers without legally distributing it). It's further worth remembering that if this is a problem, you can always ask the original author to re-license their work under a commercial license if you would rather not share. This GPL is viral/evil/not-as-cool-as-BSD thing is rubbish. It does what it sets out to do: encourage people to share code. There's no excuse for "accidentally" using GPL code in your own software, just as there's no excuse for "accidentally" installing a pirated copy of MS Office on your friends PC. Both place value on software, and if you choose to use it in a certain way, then you have to pay for them: the only difference is in how you pay. </quote> http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18174&comment_id=251777
On Thursday 15 November 2007, djgoku wrote:
It annoys me when people talk about GPL being _free_ when it is not.
Your quote is using a flawed/incorrect definition of "free": it is not, according to some dictionaries (and all, some years ago) a shortcut for "free of charge" or (in this case) "free from reimbursement".
On Nov 15, 2007 8:41 AM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
Your quote is using a flawed/incorrect definition of "free": it is not, according to some dictionaries (and all, some years ago) a shortcut for "free of charge" or (in this case) "free from reimbursement".
Part of why people felt the need to come up with the "Open Source" name is the wide variety of definitions of "free". Let's look at just the adjective definitions at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/free We have Speech (Libre), Beer (Gratis), and a bunch of other ideas here: 1 a*:* having the legal and political rights of a citizen b*:* enjoying
civil and political liberty <*free* citizens> c*:* enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d*:* enjoying personal freedom *:* not subject to the control or domination of another 2 a*:* not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being *:* choosing or capable of choosing for itself b*:* determined by the choice of the actor or performer <*free* actions> c*:* made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously 3 a*:* relieved from or lacking something and especially something unpleasant or burdensome <*free* from pain> <a speech *free* of political rhetoric> —often used in combination <error*-free*> b*:* not bound, confined, or detained by force 4 a*:* having no trade restrictions b*:* not subject to government regulation c*of foreign exchange* *:* not subject to restriction or official control 5 a*:* having no obligations (as to work) or commitments <I'll be *free*this evening> b*:* not taken up with commitments or obligations <a *free* evening> 6*:* having a scope not restricted by qualification <a *free* variable> 7 a*:* not obstructed, restricted, or impeded <*free* to leave> b*:* not being used or occupied <waved with his *free* hand> c*:* not hampered or restricted in its normal operation 8 a*:* not fastened <the *free* end of the rope> b*:* not confined to a particular position or place <in twelve-tone music, no note is wholly * free* for it must hold its place in the series — J. L. Stewart> c*:* capable of moving or turning in any direction <a *free* particle> d*:* performed without apparatus <*free* tumbling> e*:* done with artificial aids (as pitons) used only for protection against falling and not for support <a * free* climb> 9 a*:* not parsimonious <*free* spending> b*:* outspoken<http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/outspoken> c*:* availing oneself of something without stint d*:* frank<http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/frank>, open <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/open> e*:* overly familiar or forward in action or attitude f*:* licentious<http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/licentious> 10*:* not costing or charging anything 11 a (1)*:* not united with, attached to, combined with, or mixed with something else *:* separate <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/separate> <* free* ores> <a *free* surface of a bodily part> (2)*:* freestanding<http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/freestanding> <a *free* column> b*:* chemically uncombined <*free* oxygen> <*free* acids> c *:* not permanently attached but able to move about <a *free* electron in a metal> d*:* capable of being used alone as a meaningful linguistic form <the word *hats* is a *free* form> — compare {h,5}bound <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/%7Bh,5%7Dbound> 7 12 a*:* not literal or exact <*free* translation> b*:* not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <*free* skating> 13*:* favorable <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/favorable> —used of a wind blowing from a direction more than six points from dead ahead 14*:* not allowing slavery 15*:* open to all comers
participants (5)
-
djgoku -
Luke -Jr -
Monty J. Harder -
Nathan Cerny -
Oren Beck