Thank you Seven for your definition of terms. I think that this is an important topic for understanding and clarity of communication. I like Free (Libre) fundamentally. That said, I am writing this message on a Mac, so my usage of non-libre tools is always a bt conflicted and I am slowly moving myself to be in better alignment with Libre.
One of the reasons that Richard Stallman is going to Keynote the FOSS4G this year is because I think he does a great job of clearly explaining the importance of Libre. I think he is an extreme outlier, but that is important in these discussions. Thanks again, Guido On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:43 AM Seven (aka Arnulf) <se...@arnulf.us> wrote: > Folks, > > every now and then terms used in discussions get a bit fuzzy resulting in > misunderstandings. We need to be very clear in our wording to avoid this. > > There are two terms describing the open and free approach: > > - Open Source (mostly a development model) > - Free Software (mostly a licensing model) > > We carry this definition in the name of our main conference FOSS4G. I > actually like the symbology of the legally protecting license models (Free > Software) wrapping around the open development model (Open Source). > > There is exactly and only one term which differentiates to the above, it > is: > > - Proprietary software (mostly a licensing and business model). > > Everything else is confusing and inexact. Especially problematic is the > term > > - "Commercial Software" (which I therefore only use in quotes, if > ever). > > It is not well defined [1]. Any software that is used in a commercial > context is "commercial". This can be Open Source, Free Software and > proprietary software. So "Commercial Software" does not really mean > anything at all. Therefore we recommend to not use the term "Commercial > Software" and to be very picky and investigative whenever hearing or > reading the term. Most people just use it out of an old habit and without > much thought. > > The FAQ of our foundation wrap this up nicely - and I remember well that > it took dozens of mails and edits to finally get there: > http://www.osgeo.org/faq#Open_Source > > And just to make sure that we build on the positive side and not to the > detriment of others, it there says: > > The foundation respects the important role that proprietary software plays > in our industry, and is not trying to get rid of it, or the companies that > produce it. However, the foundation takes the position that free and open > source software can and should play an important role in the geospatial > industry. Furthermore, having quality open source alternatives to > proprietary software can be good for the end user, the industry, and even > the proprietary software vendors. In fact, most proprietary geospatial > software is built on open source software to some extent. > > > Enjoy the day, > Seven > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_software > > -- > Arnulf Christl > OSGeo President Emeritus > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss