Open Source Software Collective

[ozarkbisonweb]

Hello
I am trying to start an Open Source software collective in the
Northwest Arkansas Ozarks region. I have a web site
(www.ozarksopensource.com) set up explaining what I am trying to do.
Check it out and use the contact form to email me if you are
interested or have more questions.

Thanks for listening.
Randl Lieb
Fayetteville, AR

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Monday 19 October 2009 19:16:55 ozarkbisonweb wrote:
> I am trying to start an Open Source software collective in the
> Northwest Arkansas Ozarks region. I have a web site
> (www.ozarksopensource.com) set up explaining what I am trying to do.
> Check it out and use the contact form to email me if you are
> interested or have more questions.

I'm sure most of us are interested. I checked out the website, and it doesn't
seem like a lot is happening, but when you do have events, please send this
list an email. I do have a couple of questions for you, that I hope you will
answer by writing back to the list:

1. Why concentrate on "Open Source" instead of "Free Software". The important
part of the software is the *free*dom and the "Open Source" name doesn't
accurately reflect that. You do know that the Open Source Definition that you
have on the site was previously (with minor cosmetic changes) the Debian Free
Software Guidelines, right?

2. Why concentrate on the Ubuntu distribution? The standard, supported
installation of Ubuntu includes software that is not under a Free Software
license. That's hardly optimal for an organization where the focus is Free
Software. Debian or gNewSense would probably be better distributions to focus
on; both only officially include Free Software. Debian does allow some non-
free software to use their infrastructure as a optional service to their
users.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/

[Daniel Veazey]

Hey, speaking of free software, I just finished writing a program in Python, my first language since BASIC 25 years ago. All the program does is time how long the computer takes to print out the numbers 0 to 999,999 using the xrange loop and the range loop to see which one is faster. It runs through each loop 100 times so it gets a good average to compensate for other processes that might take up a little CPU resources on any given cycle. The results for my computer were that the xrange loop generally finishes about .02 seconds faster than the range loop. I know it's not a program that anyone would find particularly useful, but it was just an exercise to learn some Python. I released it under the GNU GPLv3. You can see the code at http://danielveazey.com/averagetimecount.html. Comments/constructive criticism are welcome.

Thanks,
Daniel Veazey

[ozarkbisonweb]

> I'm sure most of us are interested.  I checked out the website, and it doesn't
> seem like a lot is happening, but when you do have events, please send this
> list an email.  I do have a couple of questions for you, that I hope you will
> answer by writing back to the list:

There won't be a lot happening on the site until some other people
decide to add there names and any classes they might like to set up. I
see this as another resource for developers, web designers and
instructors to get their name out there.

>
> 1. Why concentrate on "Open Source" instead of "Free Software".  The important
> part of the software is the *free*dom and the "Open Source" name doesn't
> accurately reflect that.  You do know that the Open Source Definition that you
> have on the site was previously (with minor cosmetic changes) the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, right?

With Open Source being the freedom to take the source code and do with
it what you will as opposed to free software which is, well, just
free. From my understanding of the two types ( and I could be wrong!),
Open Source can be free (as in free beer), and in fact a lot of the
good desktop apps out there are, whereas all free software isn't
necessarily Open Source. I want to focus on the non-proprietary aspect
of Open Source.

>
> 2. Why concentrate on the Ubuntu distribution?  The standard, supported
> installation of Ubuntu includes software that is not under a Free Software
> license.  That's hardly optimal for an organization where the focus is Free
> Software.  Debian or gNewSense would probably be better distributions to focus
> on; both only officially include Free Software.  Debian does allow some non-
> free software to use their infrastructure as a optional service to their
> users.

I am not really concentrating on the Ubuntu distro for the web site.
Personally that will be my focus, but others can push any other Open
Source distro that they are familiar with. I do know that not all
aspects of the standard Ubuntu desktop is Open Source but am willing
to give it a ride to have people thinking about options to Windows.

I will be the first to admit I am no developer or hard core Linux
user. I am simply trying to develop a place for home users, small
business owners and non-profits to be able to find out about ways of
going Windows-free and getting the support to do it.

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Wednesday 21 October 2009 13:21:53 ozarkbisonweb wrote:
> > I'm sure most of us are interested. I checked out the website, and it
> > doesn't seem like a lot is happening, but when you do have events, please
> > send this list an email. I do have a couple of questions for you, that I
> > hope you will answer by writing back to the list:
>
> There won't be a lot happening on the site until some other people
> decide to add there names and any classes they might like to set up. I
> see this as another resource for developers, web designers and
> instructors to get their name out there.

I'll see if I can get some of the Free Geek Arkansas events listed there,
then. I'm fairly sure classes are every Saturday around 1300. After taking
the class volunteer hours are basically all day Saturday.

> > 1. Why concentrate on "Open Source" instead of "Free Software". The
> > important part of the software is the *free*dom and the "Open Source"
> > name doesn't accurately reflect that. You do know that the Open Source
> > Definition that you have on the site was previously (with minor cosmetic
> > changes) the Debian Free Software Guidelines, right?
>
> With Open Source being the freedom to take the source code and do with
> it what you will as opposed to free software which is, well, just
> free.

No, sir. You have your terms a bit confused. The definition of "Free
Software" from the people that coined the term:
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, and a clarification that the
software is _libre_ (i.e. free as in freedom) and not necessarily _gratis_
(i.e. free as in buy 2 get 1 free):
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>. Why you should focus on "Free
Software" rather than "Open Source": <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-
source-misses-the-point.html>

Also, the Debian Free Software Guidelines
<http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines> which was later reworded
into the Open Source Definition <http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd>.

> I want to focus on the non-proprietary aspect
> of Open Source.

Then, you want to focus on "Free Software". "Free Software" (under the
control of the user) is the opposite of proprietary software (under the
control of the developer). Open source (source is available for viewing) is
the opposite of closed source (source is unavailable).

Other good reading on related subjects <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-
to-read.html>, <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-ip-ethos.html>.

[Zac Slade]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM, ozarkbisonweb <rand...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> 1. Why concentrate on "Open Source" instead of "Free Software".  The important
> part of the software is the *free*dom and the "Open Source" name doesn't
> accurately reflect that.  You do know that the Open Source Definition that you
> have on the site was previously (with minor cosmetic changes) the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, right?

With Open Source being the freedom to take the source code and do with
it what you will as opposed to free software which is, well, just
free. From my understanding of the two types ( and I could be wrong!),
Open Source can be free (as in free beer), and in fact a lot of the
good desktop apps out there are, whereas all free software isn't
necessarily Open Source. I want to focus on the non-proprietary aspect
of Open Source.

Let me stop the flame war before it starts!  Open Source and Free Software are almost synonymous with one BIG caveat.  Free Software means that the license the software is shipped with allows you to retain your four basic freedoms, see http://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs/what-is-fs-new.pdf.  Open Source software has no restriction as Open Source really only means that you can see the source code.  It doesn't guarantee that you can redistribute changes you make or that you can make any modifications and use them for yourself (see Microsoft Shared Source Licensing).

There is a large distinction and from your post it would appear that you didn't know that Free Software came first and that Eric S. Raymond coined the term Open Source to cover a much larger umbrella of projects that aren't necessarily Free Software.

 

-- 

Zac Slade
krak...@gmail.com

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:54:49 Zac Slade wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM, ozarkbisonweb <rand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 1. Why concentrate on "Open Source" instead of "Free Software".
>

> Free Software means that the
> license the software is shipped with allows you to retain your four basic
> freedoms, see http://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs/what-is-fs-new.pdf.

> Open Source software has no restriction as Open Source really only means
> that you can see the source code.

Depends on how pedantic you are.

The phrase "open source" is ambiguous. What does it mean for the source to be
open? Different things to different people. More than one entity has claimed
they were going "open source" and then exposed their source code only under
terms that prevented any real use of it.

The pharse "Open Source" is similarly ambiguous, but it generally means
licensed under an OSI-Approved license. The OSI <http://www.opensource.org/>
was founded by the persons to coin the term "open source", publishes the Open
Source Defintion <http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd>, and holds some
trademarks which they enforce where possible to restrict entities from abusing
the term.

The phrase "free software" is ambiguous. Most English speakers think the
software is without cost, initially. Most other languages avoid this since
their words for free-as-in-freedom and free-is-without-cost are not the same.
Still, you can find repositories of "free software" on the Internet that are
filled with software under proprietary licenses, but without fee from some
small period of time.

The phrase "Free Software" is similarly ambiguous, but it generally means that
the software and its license conforms to the ideals upheld by the Free
Software Foundation <http://www.fsf.org/>. While the license is important,
how the software can be used in practice is also important. Users must be
able to exercise the four freedoms that the FSF defends. A copyright license
is a good first step, but if some entity uses patents or technological means
to restrict the user's freedoms, that entity cannot be considered to be
participating in "Free Software".

> There is a large distinction and from your post it would appear that you
> didn't know that Free Software came first and that Eric S. Raymond coined
> the term Open Source to cover a much larger umbrella of projects that
> aren't necessarily Free Software.

Eric S. Raymond coined the term not to get away from the ideals of free
software, but to avoid the "cheap" implications of the word "free". His
experience showed that the development model of free software, while non-
traditional, still made very high quality products, which could compete with
very expensive software suites.

Since that time, ESR has also called for a bit of compromise, mainly around
the area of patents (not copyright). The OSI, where the "Open Source"
trademark is protected, has also accepted some software and licenses that not
everyone agrees protects the users' freedoms or follows their own Open Source
Defintion. (ESR has been involved with the OSI.)

Among those that see freedom as the defining aspect of the software,
particularly the four feedoms, the term "Free Software" is preferred. Among
those that appreciated the visibility/transparency/openness of the process,
but generally want to make ca$h of the software (which drive them away from
the "free" term), the term "Open Source" is preferred.

Entities using the "open source" term have been enemies of Free Software on
multiple occasions. Most often it happens when someone tries to exercise one
of the four freedoms by producing a modified version of the software; they see
this as an attack on either their profit or pride and generally choose a
proprietary license for their next version of the software. For this reason,
you may find some people that have a certain distaste for the term "Open
Source".

Being unwilling (or unable) to compromise has hurt the expansion of Free
Software marketshare. Because of this zealotry, you may find some people that
have a certain distaste for the term "Free Software".