[Discuss] Another entry on the care label manifest!
Javier.Serrano at cern.ch
Fri Mar 29 14:23:52 UTC 2013
On 03/29/2013 01:56 PM, Matt Maier wrote:
> For me, one of the most interesting parts of open source is that it
> occupies a middle ground between free and proprietary. Those two groups
> can't work together, but open is ground that has at least a little
> overlap. That means that open also has a greater variety of structures
> and perspectives claiming the same title. Some parts of open are closer
> to proprietary in that they are just businesses with a strategy; some
> parts are closer to free in that they are just some guys building something.
I don't quite see it that way. I see two variables with two possible
values for each:
Variable 1: Free/Libre/Open vs proprietary.
Variable 2: Commercial vs non-commercial.
Notice I am simplifying and lumping together "Free as in Freedom" with
"Open", because that is what I mean when I say "Open", but as you all
know this has been an endless debate in FOSS. This is not the object of
this thread, so I am just lumping them together for the sake of simplicity.
You can have four possible paradigms by combining the two possible
values of variable 1 with those of variable 2. Commercial *and* open is
definitely a valid one, in fact a winning combination IMHO. So I think
your statement "Some parts of open are closer to proprietary in that
they are just businesses with a strategy" is confusing in that open
cannot be close to proprietary because it is in fact its opposite, at
least the way I see things.
More information about the discuss