Response to the Federal govt RFI

[Evan Leibovitch]

S P Arif Sahari Wibowo wrote:
> IMHO "open source" software is inadequate since it seems refer to any
> software which source is available publicly
I don't consider that to be a usable or defensible definition. "Open
Source", to me, is much better defined than that in IT circles.

But just in case....

In my own document, I explicitly refer to "open source software" as any
software using a license that abides by the OSI's Open Source Definition
or the FSF's Free Software Definition.
Both sets of guidelines are openly published and fairly clear.

I'm also comfortable with the Wikipedia definition at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software as well as the
information available from the fiorst page of hits on a Google search of
"open source software". Anyone using a definition that doesn't refer to
any of the above is being deliberately and provably misleading.

I happen to believe that "open source" is generally meant to refer to
the above, even by its detractors; for instance, Microsoft has never
referred to its "Shared Source" initiative as open source. If you are
aware of any published mainstream definition of the term "open source"
that does not refer to the above guidelines, I would like to see it.

- Evan

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists