[Koha-devel] Open Source or Free Software?

[MJ Ray]

Joshua Ferraro <jferraro at 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