Hi All: 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. To my mind, there are advantages to both terms. "Open source" is more widely known (at least around here) and expresses the "openness" of the code. "Free software" (as in free speech) comes closer to the library concept of free access to information; it also (conveniently) covers the monetary aspect of things (after all, the software is available at no cost). Joshua
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:03:54PM -0400, Joshua Ferraro said:
Hi All: 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. To my mind, there are advantages to both terms. "Open source" is more widely known (at least around here) and expresses the "openness" of the code. "Free software" (as in free speech) comes closer to the library concept of free access to information; it also (conveniently) covers the monetary aspect of things (after all, the software is available at no cost).
Hi Joshua, I refer to it in both ways, it depends entirely on the audience im talking to at the time :-) I use the definition that is least confusing to them :) Chris -- Chris Cormack Programmer 027 4500 789 Katipo Communications Ltd chris@katipo.co.nz www.katipo.co.nz
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
Hi
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.
No not really - the NZOSS society wasn't really featuring at the time we made the decision on what to call it. I am aware that almost always there is cost to a library to implement Koha - particularly to a big public library (always our goal). So we thought that Open Source was more "accurate" than Free. We also are aware that large organisations very much evaluate software on a "you get what you pay for" basis - so we thought that *not* saying Koha was Free might at least get us a look in. At the time we were the first Open Source library system - but not the first Free one - so to get that Kudos, we wanted to be Open Source. Cheers Rachel_____________________________________________________________ Rachel Hamilton-Williams Katipo Communications WEBMISTRESS ph 021 389 128 or +64 04 934 1285 mailto:rachel@katipo.co.nz PO Box 12487, Wellington http://www.katipo.co.nz New Zealand Koha Open Source Library System http://www.koha.org
Rachel Hamilton-Williams <rachel@katipo.co.nz> wrote:
I am aware that almost always there is cost to a library to implement Koha - particularly to a big public library (always our goal). So we thought that Open Source was more "accurate" than Free. We also are aware that large organisations very much evaluate software on a "you get what you pay for" basis - so we thought that *not* saying Koha was Free might at least get us a look in.
Isn't it simpler to remind people of the free/free duality than to explain the very long OSI OSD? Or do you just wave hands and not explain to them at all the flexibility and rights that you are offering? "Open Source" is not a particularly accurate description of the OSI OSD.
At the time we were the first Open Source library system - but not the first Free one - so to get that Kudos, we wanted to be Open Source.
What previous free software licensed library systems have existed? Why were they not open source too? I've yet to see software meeting the Free Software Definition that doesn't meet the Open Source Definition. MJR
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 11:02:36AM -0000, MJ Ray said:
Rachel Hamilton-Williams <rachel@katipo.co.nz> wrote:
I am aware that almost always there is cost to a library to implement Koha - particularly to a big public library (always our goal). So we thought that Open Source was more "accurate" than Free. We also are aware that large organisations very much evaluate software on a "you get what you pay for" basis - so we thought that *not* saying Koha was Free might at least get us a look in.
Isn't it simpler to remind people of the free/free duality than to explain the very long OSI OSD? Or do you just wave hands and not explain to them at all the flexibility and rights that you are offering? "Open Source" is not a particularly accurate description of the OSI OSD.
At the time we were the first Open Source library system - but not the first Free one - so to get that Kudos, we wanted to be Open Source.
What previous free software licensed library systems have existed? Why were they not open source too? I've yet to see software meeting the Free Software Definition that doesn't meet the Open Source Definition.
In this case Rachel was meaning Free as in free beer. There are other free (in cost) library systems. And Rachel and Rosalie wanted to make the distinction that it was free software (in the way you and I understand) The easiest way to do this on the front page of the koha site, in a simple way that most people understand was to use the term Open Source. Having said that, as I said before I refer to Koha as Free Software, or Open Source, depending on who im talking to. Which I think is the best solution. As long as people understand its licensed under the GPL and what that entails .. i dont really mind what its called :-) Chris -- Chris Cormack Programmer 027 4500 789 Katipo Communications Ltd chris@katipo.co.nz www.katipo.co.nz
On 2003-04-22 12:12:17 +0100 Chris Cormack <chris@katipo.co.nz> wrote:
In this case Rachel was meaning Free as in free beer.
OK, fair enough, but that's not free software, as was being discussed. [...]
The easiest way to do this on the front page of the koha site, in a simple way that most people understand was to use the term Open Source.
People don't understand "Open Source" and the OSI definition is far too long to be memorable by the average human brain unless they are a specialist OSI-advocate. The fuzzy concept of "open source" is part of the reason why the confusion marketing tactics of certain free software opponents are so successful.
Having said that, as I said before I refer to Koha as Free Software, or Open Source, depending on who im talking to. Which I think is the best solution.
I disagree, as you've probably gathered. ;-) Very few non-specialist audiences understand either term, so an explanation is useful and I go for the clearest simplest explanation, honed over 20 years.
As long as people understand its licensed under the GPL and what that entails .. i dont really mind what its called :-)
Well, yes, the important thing is the concept, not the brand, isn't it? I agree entirely, so suggest that people reject the brand-as-king "Open Source" term. -- MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: slef@jabber.at This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging. How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 12:44:02AM -1100, MJ Ray said:
On 2003-04-22 12:12:17 +0100 Chris Cormack <chris@katipo.co.nz> wrote:
In this case Rachel was meaning Free as in free beer.
OK, fair enough, but that's not free software, as was being discussed.
Yep, which kinda demonstrates one of the weaknesses in the term free software. As you say below, its all about the explanation, not the term :) [snip]
Having said that, as I said before I refer to Koha as Free Software, or Open Source, depending on who im talking to. Which I think is the best solution.
I disagree, as you've probably gathered. ;-) Very few non-specialist audiences understand either term, so an explanation is useful and I go for the clearest simplest explanation, honed over 20 years.
Ahh yeah, but if I was describing Koha to a Maori audience, id use the term Koha, a concept honed over thousands of years :-)
As long as people understand its licensed under the GPL and what that entails .. i dont really mind what its called :-)
Well, yes, the important thing is the concept, not the brand, isn't it? I agree entirely, so suggest that people reject the brand-as-king "Open Source" term.
This would be worth putting on the agenda. How do people want to describe Koha on the koha.org site. But having said that, I think that people should be free to describe it however they want to describe it. So you can call it Free Software, I can call it Koha, Rachel can call it Open Source, and as long as people keep commiting to cvs ... the project keeps on going :-) Chris -- Chris Cormack Programmer 027 4500 789 Katipo Communications Ltd chris@katipo.co.nz www.katipo.co.nz
On 2003-04-22 22:25:44 +0100 Chris Cormack <chris@katipo.co.nz> wrote:
OK, fair enough, but that's not free software, as was being discussed. Yep, which kinda demonstrates one of the weaknesses in the term free software. As you say below, its all about the explanation, not the term :)
I think it demonstrates the weakness of the argument for "open source" that its supporters still rely on the free/free duality even though the denial of their trademark established the many meanings of the words open and source. ;-)
Ahh yeah, but if I was describing Koha to a Maori audience, id use the term Koha, a concept honed over thousands of years :-)
Much nicer, indeed, but Maori audiences are rare over here ;-) (Also, gift is not exactly the same in all cases of free software, but accurate here.) [...]
So you can call it Free Software, I can call it Koha, Rachel can call it Open Source [...]
That's fine. I currently use the "download koha" graphic that is free of the branding, but it would be very nice to get rid of the open source branding from the site, or at least acknowledge the main movement too. Not a high priority, though. -- MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: slef@jabber.at This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging. How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.
Okay ... the whole, insoluable argument about whether Koha is Free Software or Open Source has gone on about long enough now. Can we all drop the subject, describe Koha according to our own desires, and get on with development and bug fixing? thanks, -pate Pat Eyler Kaitiaki/manager migrant Linux sys admin the Koha project ruby, shell, and perl geek http://www.koha.org http://pate.eylerfamily.org On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-04-22 22:25:44 +0100 Chris Cormack <chris@katipo.co.nz> wrote:
OK, fair enough, but that's not free software, as was being discussed. Yep, which kinda demonstrates one of the weaknesses in the term free software. As you say below, its all about the explanation, not the term :)
I think it demonstrates the weakness of the argument for "open source" that its supporters still rely on the free/free duality even though the denial of their trademark established the many meanings of the words open and source. ;-)
Ahh yeah, but if I was describing Koha to a Maori audience, id use the term Koha, a concept honed over thousands of years :-)
Much nicer, indeed, but Maori audiences are rare over here ;-) (Also, gift is not exactly the same in all cases of free software, but accurate here.)
[...]
So you can call it Free Software, I can call it Koha, Rachel can call it Open Source [...]
That's fine. I currently use the "download koha" graphic that is free of the branding, but it would be very nice to get rid of the open source branding from the site, or at least acknowledge the main movement too. Not a high priority, though.
-- MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: slef@jabber.at This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging.
How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/koha-devel
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Joshua Ferraro wrote:
Hi All: 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.
To my mind, there are advantages to both terms. "Open source" is more widely known (at least around here) and expresses the "openness" of the code. "Free software" (as in free speech) comes closer to the library concept of free access to information; it also (conveniently) covers the monetary aspect of things (after all, the software is available at no cost).
Joshua
For me, the ethical aspect is the most important part. The Free Software focus on that. The "Open Source" focus on the technical approach. Free Software seems better in the context of Free Access to Information. For Koha, I think the ethical aspect of Free Software is really important and Koha can be used as a first contact to Free Software. just my .02 EUR. adulau -- -- Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/ -- http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x44E6CBC -- "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance -- that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov
Perhaps it would be useful to adopt the practice of describing Koha as "Free and Open Software". So often patterns of thinking follows from trends in common practice. This is particularly true of institutional contexts where the catch-phrase becomes the rallying point for management's understanding of an issue/topic. (This is not meant to denigrate managers, but to describe one of the human species' defensive practices when faced with information overload.) - Erik On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 17:03, Joshua Ferraro wrote:
Hi All: 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. To my mind, there are advantages to both terms. "Open source" is more widely known (at least around here) and expresses the "openness" of the code. "Free software" (as in free speech) comes closer to the library concept of free access to information; it also (conveniently) covers the monetary aspect of things (after all, the software is available at no cost). Joshua _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Erik Stainsby Modern Alchemy Better Libraries. By Design. www.modern-alchemy.net
participants (7)
-
Alexandre Dulaunoy -
Chris Cormack -
Erik Stainsby -
Joshua Ferraro -
MJ Ray -
Pat Eyler -
Rachel Hamilton-Williams