Pingback on March 23rd, 2006.
[...] A while back Gas wrote an article that criticized open source software as not offering the necessary incentives to drive people to develop for deaf, blind, grandma, and other types of non-programmers who use computers. (In response to this article I wrote before that). [...]
Pingback on April 2nd, 2006.
[...] Squeegie and I have written a number of articles on the topic of the economics of open source. One thing that I think neither of us has directly addressed is that there is a great deal of disagreement about the use of the terms “Open Source (OS),” “Open Source Software (OSS),” “Free Open Source Software (FOSS),” “Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS),” and “Doesnt Everyone Notice That Acronyms get Longer Free/Libre/Open Source Software (DENTAL FLOSS),” etc. Our good friend Richard Stallman (also known as RMS) has been militantly vocal about distinguishing between these terms over the years (then again, RMS has been known to be… eccentric). Originally, there was little confusion over the terms; Open Source refered to projects such as GNU, Linux, and Apache. As companies sprang up to profit from open source software, and as licenses appeared that were incompatible with the GPL, there arose a need to distinguish between these various classifications. Generally, people simply lump all of them together under the category of “Open Source”. [...]
Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.