FOSS, FLOSS and all that

[Evan Leibovitch]

Scott Elcomb wrote:

>On 12/24/05, paul sutton <zen14920-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/9Udqfwiw at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>Ahh,  actually this FOSS sounds interesting,   I think the Free Open
>>Source Software over here in the UK is refered to as FLOSS Free Libre
>>Open Source Software.   Perhaps adopting FLOSS would stop the confusion
>>between the two,  or perhaps that is why FLOSS is used in this context.
>>    
>>
>
>I prefer f/loss (provide context, bilingual) over foss, but the later
>appears to be much more common.
>  
>

The whole reason for using an acronym such as FOSS or FLOSS is that for 
various (generally political rather than linguistic) reasons the terms 
"open source" and "free software" are considered incompatible by a 
significant minority. While most people (including myself) freely 
interchange the two, I have heard some say that "open source is free 
software without the political baggage" and I've heard Stallman describe 
open source as "free software without the ethics".

Paul mentions the situation in the UK and suggests that "FLOSS" is 
commonly used. Yet on the website of the UKUUG, the country's largest 
Unix/Linux user group, the terms "FLOSS" or "FOSS" are nowhere to be 
found -- "open source" appears the usage of choice there. At very least 
this indicates that in the UK, like elsewhere in the English speaking 
world, there is no consensus.

This isn't generally an issue in the worlds of other languages. In 
France and Québec, "source ouvert" is unheard of and "logiciel libre" 
prevails. Of course the probably has to do with the fact that only in 
English do we have the "libre/gratis" ambiguity of the word "free". It 
appears that the political pissing matches between Stallman and Raymond 
(and their respective followers), and the associated linguistic whining, 
are limited to Anglophones (with the notable exception of the "Linux" 
versus "GNU/Linux" debate, which is a different story...).

Both FLOSS and FOSS (as well as F/LOSS, which is hardly a bilingual 
term) are IMO clumsy, and have other previously established meanings. 
They're designed to be a polite, diplomatic, non-controversial 
compromise which doesn't annoy "free software" or "open source" fans, 
yet slightly irritates all in the process. It's no surprise that most 
FOSS project websites dispense with the acronym (just try to find the 
term "FOSS" or "FLOSS" at apache.org or sendmail.org or almost any other 
"logiciel libre" project).

If one must choose to use one of them, I prefer FOSS for a few reasons;

- FOSS and FLOSS both represent the same concept, so linguistically the 
preference is to use the more efficient, compact term

- Stallman doesn't call his movement "free/libre software"

- Since the term "open source" is already within the acronym, having 
built-in a context for "free" (especially one imported from another 
language) isn't required.

Even the expansion of the acronym can makes a difference. Some people 
expand FOSS as "free and open source software", providing an amalgam of 
what some people perceive as two distinct categories of software. I 
prefer the expansion "free, open source software" to emphasize my own 
feeling that Stallman's and Raymond's stances are really just two sides 
of the same coin. "Open Source" is not without its own political 
baggage, and "Free Software" does not have a monopoly on ethics.

- Evan

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml