[Balug-Talk] license count != software popularity (Re: Open Source less popular than Free Software)

[Chris Waters]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:44:59PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> [I'm on both mailing lists.  Please trim from the To: roster any list
> you're not personally on, if replying.]

Sorry, I thought I was on both lists, but apparently not. If you want
to bounce this on to the other list for the sake of continuity, I
won't mind, but I also won't insist on it.

> Quoting Chris Waters (xtifr at debian.org):

> > Anyway, who decided that the OSI was the arbiter of open source or the
> > FSF the arbiter of free software?

> OSI for all practical purposes invented the concept within the
> software context, and in any event has consistently been its
> defining and promoting body ever since.

Hmm, depending on how you look at it, I'd say that either Eric or
Bruce invented the concept.  I'm not sure either one of them deserves
to be accused of _being_ the OSI. :)

And yes, as long as the OSI does a reasonable job of judging licenses
according to the definition they (or Bruce) offered, I and most people
will be content to let them judge.  It's when they start to talk about
rejecting licenses for reasons that have nothing to do with the OSD
that I start to look askance.  If they get too far off track, they can
quickly lose their position, as XFree86 did.  (Especially since
judging licenses is, at least in my opinion, a fair bit easier than
maintaining an Xserver, libraries, drivers for hundreds of devices,
etc.)

Ultimately, as with other standards like POSIX or SUS, I care more
whether something actually meets the spec than I do whether it's been
certified to meet the spec.  Which is why I don't pay much attention
to which licenses have been officially certified by the OSI or FSF
(though, as I mentioned, the FSF's lists generally make more
interesting reading).

> > The Debian project makes up its own mind....
> 
> Well, package maintainers make up their mind, and are advised by Policy
> to consult the sundry people on debian-legal, but are free to consider
> them wackos and ignore advice thus gained.  The ftp-masters make up _their_
> mind, and can potentially override maintainers. [...]

> One could call that "mind", but in my view it's more like ganglia. ;->

I suppose there's something to that view. :)

Anyway, my point, which apparently got lost, was really just that
comparing OSI-certified licenses vs. FSF-certified licenses doesn't
necessarily reveal how the wider community thinks, since many
pig-headed individuals (like me) and groups (like Debian) insist on
making up their own minds (or mind-like devices).

Basically, the comparison that attracted my attention to this thread
is a classic example of what the Jargon File calls "social science
numbers": "derived via methods of questionable validity from data of a
dubious and vague nature".  I don't know which term is more popular,
accepted or respected, but I do know that there's more to the world of
libre software than just the OSI or FSF.

cheers
-- 
Chris Waters           |  Pneumonoultra-        osis is too long
xtifr at debian.org       |  microscopicsilico-    to fit into a single
or xtifr at speakeasy.net |  volcaniconi-          standalone haiku