Re: What is Open Source?

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Charles S. Kerr (
Date: Fri Sep 15 2000 - 16:14:14 PDT

> I think terminology is as important as license agreements. I am not a
> "closed-source developer", a term that I consider perjorative and negative.
> I create both commercial and open source software. The least interesting
> aspect of my commercial software is the source that I don't release.

"closed-source" isn't pejoriative or negative; it's a fact. My day job
is closed source too. They're not mutually exclusive states. <shrug>
Anyway there was no offense meant so for the purposes of my original letter
just replace it with "someone who hadn't been closely watching the free
software developments on Unix in the pre-Linux 90's". :)

I thought it might be interesting to you & FoRK because

(1) With all the anti-MS sentiment the 98%ers work up, it's easy to
    forget that tC&tB was written as an alternative to Open Source Cathedral
    projects, not anti-commercial-software. (egcs vs. gcc, linux vs. hurd)

(2) Your DaveNet kind of mixes the Bazaar & Open Source when you say that
    Open Source is where anyone can check in changes, etc. which is like
    a distorted Bazaar model. You rightly toss the hype aside, but you
    conclude there's not much difference. But between what? Cathedral-style
    open source and cl^Hommercial software? That takes us full circle to
    Unixland circa 1996, before tC&tB hit. So, maybe commercial software
    is like 386BSD, or egcs, or the hurd, but is that a good thing? :)
> Now that that's out of the way, I like your story, what project are you
> managing in a bazaar-like way?

I don't know that I"d hold it up as a poster child of the model,
since it works better with more eyes & my project is of limited
interest, but it's the GNOME newsreader "Pan".


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 16:19:38 PDT