On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 11:59:09 am Praveen A wrote: > 2008/12/30 Kenneth Gonsalves <[email protected]>: > > well, let us agree to disagree - my concept of FOSS differs from yours. I > > believe that license is only one aspect of FOSS - a more important aspect > > is > > it is ok to have individual concepts about what is foss and how it > differs. But if you have a different idea from what is commonly > referred to as foss (Free Software definition from FSF, Debian Free > Software Guidelines, Open Source definition - almost all foss passes > the three definitions, except for some corner cases like reciprocal > license which passes Open Source Definition but fails FSF's > definition) it would be better to call it by a separate name to avoid > confusion.
none of these 'definitions' define FOSS. They just lay down the criteria that *must* be fulfilled for a project to be considered FOSS. Minimum criteria. But FOSS is something much more than that. To different people it is an ideology, a methodology, a religion and even, surprise, surprise, a mass movement. I am a methodology guy and hence focus on that - and I have no plans of changing the nomenclature. To me, FOSS methodology (or the FOSS development model) is the most important aspect. License is a minor aspect. And the extent to which the FOSS development model is used is usually directly proportional to the quality of the software and its responsiveness to the needs of the users - and I personally use FOSS software because of it's quality and its responsiveness to the needs of the users. And as far as possible keep away from dual licensed stuff and other stuff of dubious provenance. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
