Objective of IFSO Re: [Fsfe-ie] stuff from the past week [adelaney at cs.may.ie]
david at oldr.net
Fri Oct 31 21:23:49 CET 2003
On Fri 31 Oct 2003 19:18, Philip Reynolds wrote:
> The term "open source" is ambiguous enough, because one could
> believe that the source is completely open and viewable to anybody
> or the source is open for the intended recipient (i.e. the
"Open Source" (note capitals) is quite well defined by the OSI Definition or
DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidlines), at this stage, despite Microsoftie
attempts to dilute the term.
* Open Source Initiative, not the Ottowa Swine Institute...
> Obviously in the case of a commercial entity trying to sell the
> software, the latter is the intended meaning.
> Is the latter really proprietary software?
Yes. It was always called source-available-proprietary (SAP) back in my day
among computer-literate engineers, it was a common way of shipping
computational fluid dynamics or finite element analysis codes for compilation
on high-end unix, for example.
Note also that legally speaking, it is becoming quite important to be clear
that GPL software is proprietary too - it is "owned" by the copyright holder
and licensed under the GPL, so it still has a proprietor. It is emphatically
not "Public Domain", despite SCO's incoherent rantings.
Saying it is non-proprietary might still give roughly the right impression to
programmers and most normal humans, but it is entirely the wrong idea to give
More information about the FSFE-IE