[ale] pigs do fly

[Tim Watts]

OSI doesn't own a trademark on open source so they have no standing to sue 
Microsoft.

Look, I understand that there isn't a universal, rigorous definition of open 
source. Like "all natural", it can be employed as a marketing gimmick. The 
fact that it can doesn't make that a Good Thing. But within IT there is 
currently something close to a common understanding of it -- and none of 
Microsoft's product codebase falls under it. I guess I'm in the camp that 
prefers to reinforce (and perhaps refine) this understanding rather rely on 
someone's notion of a "natural" definition.

And maybe this is where my apprehension with MS's participation in OSS starts: 
Do they intend to exploit the softness of the definition, co-opt it to their 
own and then pressure corporate players to sign on? GPL today, MS-GPL 
tomorrow...

Regarding open standards: oh, the perils of the English language. This sense 
of "open" is not in the same cirus tent as that used for open source.

We do agree on one thing: This thread just isn't worth anyone's time...


On Tuesday 21 July 2009 5:05:00 pm Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Tim Watts wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 July 2009 2:36:53 pm Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> >> No, I did not misspeak.  "Open source" and "free software" mean two very
> >> different things; all free software is open source, but the inverse is
> >> not true.  All open source means is that the source is available to
> >> someone to at least view; this is why one should say "free software"
> >> when that is what they mean, and if necessary additionally qualified
> >> with a reference to that definition.  I've heard people use "software
> >> libre" to say the same thing, less ambiguiously, which also works.
> >
> > Agreed: open source and free software are not identical concepts. But I
> > think your understanding of the term is not widely accepted. For
> > instance, OSI (and I think most of that chunk of the world that gives a
> > rat's ass about this sort of thing) understand it to mean something like
> > this:
> >
> > http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
> >
> > So "source available" does not necessarily imply "open source".
> > Additionally, open source is usually synonymous with a style of
> > collaborative development open to public participation. These waters can
> > get murky enough as it is without trying to put MS's "shared source"
> > under the same umbrella.
> >
> > The fact that MS will license access to some of their source for a hefty
> > price does not make it worthy of the term Open Source as it is commonly
> > understood -- not nearly so, IMHO.
>
> The term open source can be naturally construed to mean "not closed
> source," and whether we assign attributes of purity to one, the other, or
> paradoxially both is splitting hairs, I think.
>
> Microsoft has three types of licenses:  closed source, proprietary
> software; (limited or restricted) open source, proprietary software, and
> open source, free software.
>
> It is certainly possible to break those categories down further, but in
> doing so we start to draw very fine lines and argue semantics and, at least
> in context, that is a waste of time.  Keep in mind that OSI doesn't
> disagree here; if they did, they would be suing Microsoft itself for
> violation of their trademark, as CodePlex is a service for hosting open
> source code, which includes any license (such as the Singularity license)
> which is open source, yet proprietary.  While CodePlex does not carry the
> Windows kernel, it is still open source; you just have to meet the
> qualifications (either have lots of money, or be an educational institution
> and apply for it).
>
> While the term "open source" may frequently be used to imply that the
> source can be universally viewed and modified, neither of those has to be
> true for a company to say they are open source.  In the most basic sense of
> the words as they work in English, a company is quite happily to use the
> phrase "open source" to mean "not closed source," which they are happy to
> define as "closed source means we keep the code private".
>
> That said, any member of the community who would be interested in, say,
> helping out the ReactOS project could, in fact, do so and follow the terms
> of the source license given by Microsoft WRT the Windows kernel; they would
> simply have to never actually write code for ReactOS.  They could, however,
> write specs of the Windows kernel source code in plain natural language,
> which they could in turn give to the kernel developers of ReactOS so that
> they can more easily implement their kernel compatibly.  They would just
> have to have the money.
>
> Think of it this way: we as a community consider standards to be open if
> they are published by ISO/IEC.  Yet, those standards (often) cost a pretty
> penny to acquire.  They are not free standards; but they are open.  So,
> what's the difference here?
>
>  	--- Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

-- 
A faith in miracles grades seamlessly into excuses for inaction.
 -- George Monbiot