Subject: Open Source != Free Software

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:09:11 -0500

It has been suggested that RAND would prevent, rather than just
discourage, the development of open source implementations of a standard
and thus should be avoided by the IETF. However, the argument that open
source implementations would be prevented does not ring true...
    For instance, it has been said that: "RAND is usually considered to
be a code word for 'All comers to the plate pay  the same royalty'.
Since there's no revenue stream for an open source application, that
definition of RAND means 'No Open Source implementers need apply'." 
 
    This seems to be confusing two concepts:
    1) Open Source
    2) Free Software
 
    A holder of IPR rights can implement some system and make the source
readily available while still prohibiting others from implementing or
even compiling the "open source." In fact, "open source" might even form
the body of a disclosure or description of preferred embodiment in a
patent or patent application. Such open source would provide users with
many of the claimed benefits of open source (i.e. the ability to inspect
implementations, detect bugs, learn techniques, etc.) while still not
allowing those people to use the open source without paying licenses.
    It should also be possible for a group of royalty-paying developers
to work on an "open source" project in much the same way that they would
work on an "open-source royalty free" project today. Royalty-free and
Open Source are not synonyms.
    Whether something is "open source" should be independent of whether
or not it is "free" and unencumbered. If the Open Source folk are
insisting that "Open" also means free, then it looks like they are just
"Free Software" folk in disguise and the "open source" tag offers no
real information over "free software."
 
        bob wyman

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:39:37 -0500

>     This seems to be confusing two concepts:

One *should* confuse them, because the two terms refer to the same
thing.  The only difference between the two is that the first is a
development philosophy and the second is a religion.  You won't find
open source people calling you unethical if you don't choose to
benefit from using the open source model.

Could you perhaps tell me where you got this mistaken notion from?
I'd like to track down the source of the idea and smush it.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com | A government does enough
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | wrong to offset what it
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right.  Better that
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | it should do less.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:06:31 -0800

Bob,

There's years of history behind this that I'll not bore you with.
But Open Source and Free Software _are_ essentially the same thing as
far as the software licensing is concerned - which is the only important
metric IMO. The Open Source campaign is a way of talking with business
about Free Software in terms that business understands. My intent as
co-founder of the Open Source Initiative was that it _not_ be in conflict
with Stallman, but that it be a gentle approach for people who would
not otherwise be interested in hearing anything that Stallman was saying.

Our preference is that you apply the term "disclosed source-code" to
any embodyment of publicly-released source code that does not include
the licensing rights called for in the Open Source Definition. If it's
Open Source, its license should explicitly convey the rights stated in
the Open Source Definition.

	Thanks

	Bruce