Re: Boy Scout Open Source

["MBR-2" <user=90@nabble.blu.org>]

 It's just that I've seen too many wars over the years, where someone 
like Microsoft has tried to confuse the issue by redefining the word 
"open".  Most recently, consider the name "Office Open XML".  I can't 
imagine the choice of the words "Open" and "Office"  as the first two 
words was a mere accident.  It's much more plausible that it's an 
intentional ploy by Microsoft targeted at people who don't understand 
the standards battle they're waging (the majority of the general public 
plus a fair number of techies who aren't watching closely), with the 
intent of misleading them into thinking Open Office is somehow related 
to Microsoft's OOXML. 

However in the case of the BSA (the Boy Scouts of America, not the 
Business Software Alliance -- and no, I'm not paranoid enough to think 
that choice of initials was intentional), I hope you saw the followup I 
sent a mere 8 minutes after the first email, in which I wrote: 

    My mistake.  I just found a different webpage of theirs at 
    http://opensource.scouting.org/classroom/opensource/index.php/What_is_Open_Source
    where they define what they mean by "Open Use".  I'd assumed "Open 
    Use" meant no restrictions on what you can do with the binaries, but 
    at this other webpage they spell out that it includes the 
    requirement that source code be made available to anyone who 
    receives a binary. 

                Mark 


randy cole wrote: 
> Mark, 
> 
> I just looked at that http://opensource.scouting.org/ .  They are 
> talking specifically about open SOURCE code. 
> 
> Open to Review 
>    The Open to Review requirement means that anyone can get involved in 
>    the project.  <=== i.e. anyone can access the source code, even if 
>    the person isn't "clean". 
> ... 
> Open Use 
>    The Open Use requirement means that the software is free from 
>    restrictions for its use. 
> 
> That's about how most people who aren't lawyers would explain open 
> source.  I don't see any agenda, or jargon.  Plus they are asking for 
> comments. 
> 
> Randy 
> 
> 
> 
> MBR wrote: 
>> In spite of this having gotten way off topic because of the Boy 
>> Scouts' Freedom of Association case, I think there's a different 
>> issue here that _is_ highly relevant to BLU (and also FSF for that 
>> matter).  I just looked closely at their answer to the question "What 
>> is Open Source Software?" at 
>> http://opensource.scouting.org/classroom, and it looks to me like 
>> they leave out the most crucial core concept of Open Source (or as 
>> Stallman prefers to call it, "Free") Software.  They state that Open 
>> Source software is: 
>> 
>>       1. Open to Review 
>>       2. Open Standards 
>>       3. Open Use 
>> 
>> Those may all be true, but the core concept behind "open source" is 
>> that the source code is open - open not merely to review, and not 
>> merely for end user use of compiled binaries, but open to 
>> modification of the source code and redistribution under the 
>> requirement that the source code must be made available to anyone to 
>> whom a binary is distributed.  This sort of redefinition of the term 
>> "open" is the sort of FUD I expect to hear from Micro$oft.  It leaves 
>> me wondering if the Boy Scouts are running some sort of agenda that 
>> leads to them misrepresenting the meaning of open source, or if 
>> they're just clueless regarding what open source is truly about. 
>> 
>>    Mark Rosenthal 
>>    Arlington Software Enterprises 
>>    [hidden email] 
>> 
>> John Abreau wrote: 
>>> Hi, Bill. 
>>> 
>>> I saw a story this morning about the Boy Scouts starting an opwn source 
>>> initiative, with its web site at 
>>> 
>>>     http://opensource.scouting.org/
>>> 
>>> Do you know anything about this? Maybe we could have a talk on it at 
>>> an upcoming BLU meeting? 
>