[Noisebridge-discuss] on the meaning of Open Source (was Re: City of Berkeley explanation of why not using open source.. Open Source vs. "proprietary" software)

[Stefano Maffulli]

2011/5/31 <travis+ml-noisebridge at subspacefield.org>

>  It also does not "go commercial", that is
> what makes it F/LOSS, as opposed to open-source.
>

They're not opposite. FLOSS means Free Libre Open Source Software, they're
the same thing and both are 'commercial'.

>From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
“Commercial”

Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That confuses two
entirely different issues.

A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A
commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can
be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. The two
questions—what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its
users have—are independent.

In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages
were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating
system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as
the FSF and universities. Later, in the 1990s, free commercial software
started to appear.

Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should
encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means “nonfree” will
tend to think that the “free commercial” combination is self-contradictory,
and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word
“commercial” in that way.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110531/78ae113e/attachment-0002.html>