FAQ for giving lectures about Free Software

[Alex Hudson]

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 21:52 +0200, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
> Nor would I label "Open Source" as a development methodology.  There is
> the distinction Free Software / non-free Software but this has nothing
> to do with the development model, which can be (more) open or (more)
> closed. 

"Open source", to me, focusses on the development method. The whole
argument behind "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is quite clear about
this: making the code available for everyone to inspect and contribute
to is the mojo which makes "all bugs shallow", etc.

I don't think it's unfair to say that "open source" is mostly concerned
with a development method. From opensource.org:

        "The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When
        programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code
        for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve
        it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a
        speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional
        software development, seems astonishing."
        
>From their FAQ:

        "Open source promotes software reliability and quality by
        supporting independent peer review and rapid evolution of source
        code."

> > Open Source is a term that was coined because the term 'free' in English
> > is ambiguous.  
> 
> Do you have references for that? 

http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/free-notfree.php

It might be revisionist; I don't know - but the argument about the
ambiguity was what I was always aware of.

Cheers,

Alex.