[Fsf-friends] Continuation....of Basics......

[Ramanraj K]

Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
> Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> 
>> 3. You can verify by compiling the sources yourselves, which you
>>    cannot with non-free software. Not even if it is opensource, like
>>    the way M$ has offerred the UK government the other day.
> 
> 
> By clubbing M$'s "shared source" program with Opensource, you exhibit 
> the same ignorance of Opensource as others have of GPL. Just as others 
> take the word "free" in free software literally, you are taking "open 
> source" literally.
> 
> Do read the Opensource definition at least once - 
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
> 
Could you please explain why we should go out of our way to read 
definitions by third parties?

X can write a FOO_BAR license agreement and define FOO_BAR as he 
pleases.  X could say "FOO_BAR" means such and such thing.  The OSI has 
chosen to write an "Open Source" definition, inventing new meanings for 
the expression "Open Source".  Please understand that merely because OSI 
has defined FOO_BAR or Open Source to mean certain things, the 
expression does not loose its generic meanings.  Non-free software can 
fairly and correctly describe their software as open source, if they do 
  publish source code, and the OSI or anyone else cannot complain about 
it.  Probably the OSI and its friends can claim that the non-free 
software is not open source within the meaning of their private 
definitions, which is too narrow to be interesting to us. Open air, open 
court, open fire, etc. have existed for a long time and there is nothing 
special about open source.

You could show respect to the posters to this list, while trying to 
elicit answers to clear your doubts.  Try to free your mind - that 
should help.

You may also try your luck asking the OSI, if the OSI has an open 
mailing list like this.

> I quote:
> ============================
> Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
> 
> 1. Free ...
   [the redundant stuff snipped by me]