A couple of you will already know about these, since a couple of you wrote them, but for the rest of us: New Zealand Leads the Way: the Horowhenua Open Source Story http://webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=3925 Nelsonville Public Library: Questions and Answers About Open Source http://webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=3941 Part of 'Open Source Month' at WebJunction, an online publication of OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) -- Owen ---- Nelsonville Public Library Koha 2.0.0-pre-x (CVS)
On 2003-11-07 01:55:19 +0000 Owen Leonard <oleonard@athenscounty.lib.oh.us> wrote:
New Zealand Leads the Way: the Horowhenua Open Source Story http://webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=3925
I almost expect that some koha material uses the ambiguous "open source" phrase rather than the more inclusive "free and open source," but was it really necessary to include an attack on the term "free software" as part of this article? :-( I suppose this pair of articles increases the pressure for a pre6 release, so that we have one available with working installer and upgrader tools for people coming from webjunction to try. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
On 2003-11-07 01:55:19 +0000 Owen Leonard <oleonard@athenscounty.lib.oh.us> wrote:
Part of 'Open Source Month' at WebJunction, an online publication of OCLC (Online Computer Library Center)
Can someone with a personal contact at this publication help me, please? The article "What is Open Source Software?" contains many grave errors and misleading phrases. That is unusual, because the OSI OSD included at the end of the text corrects most of these. The most worrying are: "any modifications to the source code that is distributed must be shared openly with the open source community" This is completely untrue. If you distribute code under an "Open Source" or "Free Software" (I will write "open/free software") licence, then you must offer distribution of source code to those you distribute the object code to. The licence may not force you to release modifications to parties who you did not distribute to. If you make modifications for your own private use, then I think you are not obliged to share them at all, although most would consider it polite to do so if asked. In some cases (BSD-style licences), you may even distribute modified versions without giving users the source code. "Open source software is free" Only if you mean free as in freedom. I sell some of my open/free software, thank you. "Open source software technology is equal to or better than commercial software." Open/free software *is* commercial software sometimes. If you forbid software from being used in commerce (SuSE YaST for example), then it is not open/free software, according to OSI and FSF. This error is repeated again later in the text. "Is free software really any good? Quality and price often have nothing to do with each other." This is confusing the meanings of "free" without good reason. Nothing obliges open/free software to be zero-cost, although I think it probably tends to that limit over time. If these errors can be corrected, I think it would be very beneficial for all. As it stands, it gives libraries a false impression of open/free software which may harm independent suppliers. If no-one has a personal contact, I will approach them directly. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
On Friday 07 November 2003 17:06, you wrote:
On 2003-11-07 01:55:19 +0000 Owen Leonard
<oleonard@athenscounty.lib.oh.us> wrote:
Part of 'Open Source Month' at WebJunction, an online publication of OCLC (Online Computer Library Center)
Can someone with a personal contact at this publication help me, please? The article "What is Open Source Software?" contains many grave errors and misleading phrases. That is unusual, because the OSI
"Open source software is free"
Only if you mean free as in freedom. I sell some of my open/free software, thank you. additionally, it is very clearly specified in the history of Koha that the library (dont ask me to spell or pronounce the name) paid katipo to develop koha and subsequently pays them to upgrade and support it - thinking that opensource stuff is written as a charitable enterprise to earn indulgences in the next life is an insult to the opensource community
"Open source software technology is equal to or better than commercial software."
Open/free software *is* commercial software sometimes. and i would add that the distinction is between opensource and closed source and not between commercial and non-commercial. Military sponsored software for example could be closed source but non-commercial. And, if opensource developers didnt make money, directly or indirectly from writing opensource code, you wouldnt find much of it around. my 2 paise kg
I actually know Ed personally (he works for the Gates Foundation in Seattle which I visited as part of the Gates Foundation Grant). I'll drop him an email and mention that the community requested some adjustments to his article--does that sound ok? Joshua On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 06:03:49PM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Friday 07 November 2003 17:06, you wrote:
On 2003-11-07 01:55:19 +0000 Owen Leonard
<oleonard@athenscounty.lib.oh.us> wrote:
Part of 'Open Source Month' at WebJunction, an online publication of OCLC (Online Computer Library Center)
Can someone with a personal contact at this publication help me, please? The article "What is Open Source Software?" contains many grave errors and misleading phrases. That is unusual, because the OSI
"Open source software is free"
Only if you mean free as in freedom. I sell some of my open/free software, thank you. additionally, it is very clearly specified in the history of Koha that the library (dont ask me to spell or pronounce the name) paid katipo to develop koha and subsequently pays them to upgrade and support it - thinking that opensource stuff is written as a charitable enterprise to earn indulgences in the next life is an insult to the opensource community
"Open source software technology is equal to or better than commercial software."
Open/free software *is* commercial software sometimes. and i would add that the distinction is between opensource and closed source and not between commercial and non-commercial. Military sponsored software for example could be closed source but non-commercial. And, if opensource developers didnt make money, directly or indirectly from writing opensource code, you wouldnt find much of it around. my 2 paise kg
Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Joshua Ferraro "In libris libertas!"
Joshua Ferraro wrote:
I actually know Ed personally (he works for the Gates Foundation in Seattle which I visited as part of the Gates Foundation Grant)
Gates fundation ? Do you mean "Bill Gates foundation" ? OK, I understand errors on free/open sources :-D
. I'll drop him an email and mention that the community requested some adjustments to his article--does that sound ok?
Could you ask him to add something about France ? I've been quite disapointed to read "NPL & UNIDO as beta-tester, and nothing on Dombes Abbey, which has been the 1st tester. -- Paul POULAIN Consultant indépendant en logiciels libres responsable francophone de koha (SIGB libre http://www.koha-fr.org)
participants (5)
-
Joshua Ferraro -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
MJ Ray -
Owen Leonard -
paul POULAIN