Joshua Ferraro <jferraro@alma.athenscounty.lib.oh.us> wrote:
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.
Well, I think open source is a very poor term. Lots of people have heard of it, but I've yet to meet anyone able to give me the full 10-point definition accurately. Other organisations (particularly within UK government and proprietary software producers) promote their own definitions of "open source" which conflict with the OSI definition. It's just a total mess and too hard to untangle. Open Source didn't get the intended trademark, yet they keep on going, causing confusion. That's probably because of their understated decision to de-emphasise the freedoms to use, modify and redistribute unchanged or modified versions. Why would they do that? Now be very suspicious ;-) "Free software" is a term with a simple 4-clause definition that many people can remember accurately, a long history and a good fit with the ideas of freedom of information and the academic method. They are things that I think libraries should believe in. The only criticism that holds any weight is the potential for confusion with "cost-free" but, as you say, even that's not a problem for koha itself, as it's a free download. I suspect the main reason why koha is described as "open source" is that NZ seems to be one of the few places with a national organisation for "open source" but not one for "free software" promotion. MJR