On Wednesday, 6 August 2003 at 12:06:49 +0930, Dan Shearer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:45:53AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> Years ago, rms came out with a pretty obvious term, "free software". >> Despite everything, the name was misinterpreted (beer? actions?). >> And the suits didn't like it because it smacked too much of >> counterculture. So the term "open source" was invented, and it's >> doing quite well for itself. >> >> But if you can misinterpret the intentions of "free software", how >> much more can you misinterpret "open source"? Go out in the street >> and ask passers-by what each means. Those who have never heard of >> either will have a reasonable idea what free software is, but they >> wouldn't even associate "open source" with software until they're >> told. > > The only really solid term I've seen is "Linux". It seems to be readily > recognisable as a "free software thingy" and I've used Linux-style for > describing Apache on Solaris and FreeBSD to good effect. As long as > people understand the details hardly matter. If you want to understand the details, yes, the details matter. Sure, you can use "Linux" as a sort of catchall, but there will be groups who don't want to be thought of as "Linux". And it also fails the man-in-the-street test, though possibly not as badly as "open source". Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Attachment:
pgp00002.pgp
Description: PGP signature