Re: Wikipedia to merge Free Software and Open Source

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Chris Croughton wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:56:34PM +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 18:27 +0100, Alex Hudson wrote:
> > > Noah Slater wrote:
> > > > You could develop some software in total secrecy and occasionally publish the
> > > > code with a GPL licence. This would be Free Software but to call it Open Source
> > > > would be a mistake because it does not follow an open development methodology.
> > > 
> > > Netscape was "open source" the moment they released the code; that was 
> > > like the first the big open source win.
> > > 
> > > The development methodology is an adjunct. I agree that the open source 
> > > attitude, if there is one, is that "it's better to develop code in large 
> > > groups", and to do that you need a suitable licensing environment. But 
> > > whether or not something is "open source" is nothing to do with how it's 
> > > developed.
> > 
> > And you could have open source code but a restrictive license for using
> > it.
> 
> As far as I see it Free Software is a subset of Open Source.  It can't
> be free (in the sense of freedom) unless the source is open, but it is
> possible for the source to be open but not free (because of restrictive
> licences).

Are we talking about "Open Source" as in the "Open Source Definition"
or are we talking about the dollop of blue goo I found under my kitchen
sink, which may have been HP Sauce once, but I've decided to name
"Open Sauce"?

Cheers, Phil.