Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

A Definition of Open Source

Author:Eric Kidd
Posted:8/25/2000; 1:36:05 AM
Topic:A Definition of Open Source
Msg #:20171
Prev/Next:20170 / 20174

This is as real as I can make it, Dave. ;-) If I left out anything else, I wouldn't be able to recognize the result as open source.

Feel free to post feedback, folks; this is just another draft. As always, I speak for nobody but myself.

Short Version

Open source software meets four major criteria:

You're allowed to use your common sense. If you intend all of these things, then the actual license is mostly a technicality for the lawyers. If you patent your open source software (and you don't give your patents away to other developers), then your software isn't open source.

If you release open source software, you're an open source developer. You don't need to agree with anybody's politics to be an open source developer--not Eric Raymond's, not Richard Stallman's, and not even Linus Torvalds'.

Long Version

"Open source" is defined at greater length in the Open Source Definition and the Debian Free Software Guidelines (scroll down).

If you like everything all spelled out, with no appeals to common sense, then you should read these definitions. But if you prefer to rely on common sense, then you can use the short definition above.

Cheers,
Eric

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:15 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.