On 8/31/2014 6:16 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 31 August 2014 06:53, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
I know FSF prefers "free" over the "open" I've been using. But really,
everybody knows what "open" and "open source" mean, and it's *not* confusing
and ambiguous. So the whole "free" obsession is just semantic pedantry that
introduces ambiguity and confusion ("free as in...what, which 'free' now?
Because Linux...I mean GNU/Linux...is both types, right?") and distracts
people from the more important matters.
I find that using the term "open source" is like using the term "cloud
computing". It's a buzzword to make free software sound more
attractive to commercial businesses.
Well, I do hate "could" and other marketing buzzwords...
But "open" and "openness" *do* have connotations of freedom. (Just ask
any hippie/new ager ;) )
By preferring the term "free" over "open", you are merely pointing out
that a "Waste Management and Disposal Technician" is just a "Bin-man",
no matter what angle you take on it.
I can't say I agree with that analogy, but maybe there are either
regional or subcultural differences in the connotations of "open".
I see "open" not as being a marketer buzzword, but as clear and concise
way to not let Average Joe easily mistake it for meaning "free as in
'free beer'". The fact that we even have the whole "free as in..." thing
at all indicates we've already *acknowledged* there's a communication
problem with "free". OTOH, when you say "open", everyone knows what you
mean. "Free" requires configuring while "Open" just works out-of-the-box. ;)
