Perhaps it would be useful to adopt the practice of describing Koha as "Free and Open Software". So often patterns of thinking follows from trends in common practice. This is particularly true of institutional contexts where the catch-phrase becomes the rallying point for management's understanding of an issue/topic. (This is not meant to denigrate managers, but to describe one of the human species' defensive practices when faced with information overload.) - Erik On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 17:03, Joshua Ferraro wrote:
Hi All: Koha is often referred to as an "open source" project (definition at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html. Do we also characterize it as "free software" (definition at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)? I know that in practice, nearly all software meeting one definition also meets the other, I was just wondering what everyone thinks about the distinction. To my mind, there are advantages to both terms. "Open source" is more widely known (at least around here) and expresses the "openness" of the code. "Free software" (as in free speech) comes closer to the library concept of free access to information; it also (conveniently) covers the monetary aspect of things (after all, the software is available at no cost). Joshua _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Erik Stainsby Modern Alchemy Better Libraries. By Design. www.modern-alchemy.net