Open Source definition is inaccurate

[Martin Owens]

I've made an annotation for the open source definition in the current version of the published manual:

http://www.co-ment.net/embed/2458/public_view/

I've noted all the glaring inaccuracies which will continue a lot of the misconceptions about what FOSS is and why it's important.

[Bryan Behrenshausen (stillnotcool-deactivatedaccount-deactivatedaccount)]

These comments from doctormo are valuable; however, while some address inaccuracies in the description, others simply expand the scope of the description more broadly than a beginning user may need or even wish. The initial draft of this section included information about free software and explanations of its characteristics and benefits. Nevertheless, the team decided to use the term "open source software" when describing Ubuntu, because this is the designation Canonical prefers. Further distinction and description threatens to confuse the novice reader. For instance, Doctormo is certainly correct that free software involves plenty of monetary and non-monetary costs that are "hidden" from novice end-users (i.e., labor hours, infrastructural costs for development, etc.) -- but descriptions of these costs might sidetrack or confuse the uninitiated. Having said that, I do believe we should update the description to more appropriately address the difference between open source "copyleft" licenses and more traditional "copyright." This information should be of particular interest to readers who've turned to the chapter to, after all, "learn more." We should approach other edits -- such as the one that replaces the OSI's definition with the FSF's -- with more deliberation.

[Martin Owens (doctormo)]

Bryan, the definitions between the FSF and the OSI are almost the same, the problem is that the FSF definition is more tightly focused. Although I have to say that I personally don't like either.

Canonical are not the Ubuntu Community, I'd be weary of a blind copy since Canonical isn't exactly doing everything by the book like Debian is for instance.

[Bryan Behrenshausen (stillnotcool-deactivatedaccount-deactivatedaccount)]

I agree that neither description is perfect, Martin, but I do think it's worth noting that the FSF explicitly refuses to endorse Ubuntu, which it claims does not adhere to the foundation's definition of "free software." Granted, their reasons for this seem to focus more on Canonical's endorsement of nonfree software in the official repositories -- but applying the free software label in our manual might ruffle some feathers.

[Martin Owens (doctormo)]

Then don't apply either, We've been using the term FOSS for a while now to define an amalgamation between technical and social priorities which gives the whole definition a lot of strength.

[Bryan Behrenshausen (stillnotcool-deactivatedaccount-deactivatedaccount)]

I've just pushed the first of what will undoubtedly be many re-writes of the section. Please have a look and provide feedback if you can.

[Bryan Behrenshausen (stillnotcool-deactivatedaccount-deactivatedaccount)]

Oops. I forgot to address your previous comment (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-manual/+bug/571524/comments/4). I understand your preference for FOSS; however, I'm reluctant to drop an acronym like that into a beginner's manual without proper explanation. And such explanation would inevitably lead to the kinds of definitions you're suggesting that the section avoid. I definitely think we can strike a balance between technical and social priorities in our explanation of the terms that make Ubuntu special, but I think we'll need to attach a concrete and established label to it.

[Martin Owens (doctormo)]

Then use "Free and Open Source" which avoids the acronym, includes your golden "Open Source" branding (which is legally blind IMO) and possibly just take a sentence to explain the economics (very briefly)