in the states we have "organic" and "all natural."Colonel Panic wrote:I'm hazy about the distinction between "free" and "open source" software. I'd always taken them to be more or less the same thing.
"all natural" is a marketing term that means nothing at all, whereas open source has a solid definition, but it actually stands for for less in practice. with a lower bar of entry, its always going to have more support.
"organic" tends to mean something, especially "certified organic," although the exceptions are frustrating if not evil. compare this to free software, which actually stands for quite a lot-- though in the firmware world it means "theyve cleverly blocked updates so its ok that its not free." <- this is a little unfair and said with anger and contempt.
open source definitely plays off the fact that "the open source definition" (osd) and the "free software definition" (aka "the 4 freedoms") are generally the same thing: open source SOFTWARE and free SOFTWARE almost always overlap. but the movements/organizations are two distinct things, which is where open source plays fast and loose, and imo dirty. if it all sounds ridiculous-- it is. but there will never be "unity" because their goals are actually different.
what i hate most of all is that open source split off from what free software is doing, and is constantly insinuating that free software "doesnt play along" because they kept their own goals.
if you split off from the american dental association to cozy up to soft drink manufacturers, and accused the ada of not "playing like a team" or being "ideologues" for continuing along the same goals they had prior to the split, that would be pretty dirty. i dont think this characterization of open source is far at all from being fair.