On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 03:10:37PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Hendrik Boom (hendrik@???):
>
> > Just to be clear, that's the point of open source *as* *originally*
> > *envisaged*. Unfortunately, I believe there has been a campaign to
> > devalue the meaning of open source to mean any software fro which the
> > user gets the source code, whether there is a free licence or not.
>
> Not a new campaign. Same old.
>
> (And, by the way, I should have said that the essence of open source is
> 'the right to fork, accompanied by the means to do so, _and_ to use it for
> any purpose without fee'. Sorry about omitting that last bit.)
>
> Those of us who participate on, for example, OSI's license-discuss and
> license-review mailing lists get continually barraged with assertions
> that OSI has no legitimate right to control the meaning of 'open source'
> in the context of software, and that is invariably followed by flimsy
> and illogical bullshit reasoning that _just happens_ to serve the
> commercial interests of some pushy little company or coder.
>
> > I have started using the ugly phrase free/libre software. Just for
> > clarity.
>
> {shrug} Whatever you will.
>
> I just say 'open source', and when (inevitably) someone shows up to say
> 'What about free software?', reply 'These are two marketing concepts for
> exactly the same thing', and ignore all the subsequent denials and
> (irrelevant) advocacy noise that ensues.

It's important to point out the attempts to corrupt the phrase to the
uninitiated so that they are not misled.

Just as we need a word for GNU/Linux without systemd.

Just as Android has become the word for Linux without GNU and with
Google sitting in the way.

-- hendrik