Forwarded message:

From ravage@ssz.com Tue Feb 10 10:35:27 1998 From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> Message-Id: <199802101635.KAA02425@einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Open Source Software - Proposal To: users@ssz.com (SSZ User Mail List) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:35:25 -0600 (CST) Cc: friends@ssz.com (Ravage's Friends), stugreen@realtime.net X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3835

Forwarded message:

X-within-URL: http://earthspace.net/~esr/open-source.html

GOODBYE, "FREE SOFTWARE"; HELLO, "OPEN SOURCE"

After the Netscape announcement broke in February early 1998 I did a lot of thinking about the next phase -- the serious push to get "free software" accepted in mainstream corporate America. And I realized we have a serious problem with "free software" itself.

Specifically, we have a problem with the term "free software", itself, not the concept. I've become convinced that the term has to go.

The problem with it is twofold. First, it's confusing; the term "free" is very ambiguous (something the Free Software Foundation's propaganda has to wrestle with constantly). Does "free" mean "no money charged?" or does it mean "free to be modified by anyone", or something else?

Second, the term makes a lot of corporate types nervous. While this does not intrinsically bother me in the least, we now have a pragmatic interest in converting these people rather than thumbing our noses at them. There's now a chance we can make serious gains in the mainstream business world without compromising our ideals and commitment to technical excellence -- so it's time to reposition. We need a new and better label.

I brainstormed this with some Silicon Valley fans of Linux the day after my meeting with Netscape (Feb 5th). We kicked around and discarded several alternatives, and we came up with a replacement label we all liked: "open source".

John "maddog" Hall and Larry Augustin, both of the Linux International Board of Directors, were in on the brainstorming session (though interestingly enough the term "open source" was suggested by non-hacker Chris Peterson, observing for the Foresight Institute). Linus Torvalds himself approved it the following day. And it isn't a Linux-only thing; Keith Bostic likes it and says he thinks the BSD community can be brought on board.

We suggest that everywhere we as a culture have previously talked about "free software", the label should be changed to "open source". Open-source software. The open-source model. The open source culture. The Debian Open Source Guidelines. (In pitching this to corporate America I'm also going to be invoking the idea of "peer review" a lot.)

Bruce Perens has volunteered to register "open source" as a trademark and hold it through Software in the Public Interest. And RMS himself has said he'll use the term (though not exclusively) as long as the Open Source Definition Bruce is working up isn't weaker than the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

And, we should explain publicly the reason for the change. Linus has been saying in "World Domination 101" that the open-source culture needs to make a serious effort to take the desktop and engage the corporate mainstream. Of course he's right -- and this re-labeling, as Linus agrees, is part of the process. It says we're willing to work with and co-opt the market for our own purposes, rather than remaining stuck in a marginal, adversarial position.

It's crunch time, people. The Netscape announcement changes everything. We've broken out of the little corner we've been in for twenty years. We're in a whole new game now, a bigger and more exciting one -- and one I think we can win.

_________________________________________________________________

Back to Eric's Home Page Up to Site Map $Date: 1998/02/10 03:55:36 $

Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>