But for the cost of a mac, you could get a higher spec Dell which is guaranteed to be compatible with you SuSe And when you phone up Novell with a bug, your phoning people that will fix the bug and send you a patch, not some generic mac help desk.
Macs are generally *very* cost-competitive.
That word, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
If you compare Mac and non-Mac hardware solutions to almost any realistic set of requirements, the Mac solution is at least 40% more than the comparable Windows solution.
To get Macs to look cost competitive with non-Macs, you need to
* Define the requirements as "exactly what this Mac has". * Ignore the value of any features in the PC you're comparing it with that aren't in the Mac.
What makes Macs competitive is the software. The hardware is still super-expensive.
And Apple will fix the bug, and even replace your computer if the problem is in hardware.
I'm still waiting for Apple to fix some bugs from 2004.
Huh. I had the HDD in my Thinkpad go south. I unscrewed one fat screw, pulled out the hard drive sled, slotted a new drive in, and restored everything from backup.
When the HDD in my Macbook died I had a choice of being without my laptop for a week, at least, or go into the Genius Bar at the Apple Store (while I was recovering from the flu) and wait for the Genius to reinstall it, insist that I didn't want the OS installed because I was going to overwrite it with my backup anyway, and drive home.
And that was AFTER the phone call to Applecare and waiting for the Apple Store to call me to say they had the right part in. Had to run my Macbook from an external drive for a week while I was waiting.
Personally, I prefer Fusion, but to each his own. Parallels does have better snapshot capabilities, but I can run the same VM image in Fusion and in other VMWare products.
instead of 1 thing that can fail youve just spent a shitload of money to add 2 points of failure to your system.
Instead of one thing that's got a high probability of failure I've replaced it with one that's got a lower probability of failure, and locked down the high failure rate one into a VM that I can snapshot, revert, and even when it does break I've still got 90% of my stuff outside the broken VM image.
There's enough people looking for a dock that there's multiple companies selling kludges that sort of give you some of the functionality of a dock at much greater expense... and selling enough to keep doing it.
And I'd rather Apple tuned down the "simple and elegant" knob a bit. Simplicity and elegance means my Macbook Pro has one of the worst keyboards on a laptop, ever, and I have to go cap-in-hand to the "genius bar" to get a bad hard drive replaced, and the way they cram everything in... when I'm doing anything complex like encoding a movie I have to pull the battery out or it overheats. This isn't "feature bloat" this is "minimum requirements". If it wasn't for the OS I would never spend one dime on an Apple product.
I've never had a problem uninstalling Quicktime. It's just a media player and codec encapsulation format. What's the problem you have with it?
Yes, I've bought music from iTunes. All of which I've MIX-BURN-RIPped the DRM out of. Yes, I know there's a theoretical loss of quality, but I can't hear it in overproduced distorted popular music.
So it's not the folks using "open source" who are saying that "open source" is not about freedom and community, it's Richard Stallman. Which is basically the point I was making, that this definition of "open source" as just a development model is something that's being pushed from *outside* the community that identifies what they are doing as "open source".
The only thing I disagreed with in your first statement was that RMS claimed free software was software that couldn't be made non-free.
That's what the "four freedoms" are all about. That's what the text I quoted from the preamble to the GPL is about. That is what the distinction between "Free Software" in the GNU sense and other kinds of "Free" software was. It got toned down in the early years of the FSF, but it was clear enough then for non-GPL users to get hit with plenty of flak about not *really* being free software... and what you're seeing now feels like plausible deniability to me.
If you didn't have to go through the experience I guess it's harder to see.
But some people do not use in a way the term is defined by the OSI and from a linguistic point of view, calling Microsoft's "shared source" software open source, is acceptable, but only from a linguistic point of view.
The people who are pushing this as a distinct meaning of open source are primarily the Free Software Foundation. Even Microsoft has stopped trying to do this. This is RMS trying to get people to quit using "open source" to refer to open source.
But don't you see that for someone who does not know the OSI definition, the original shared source licenses are also "open source"?
But don't you see that for someone who does not know the FSF definition, shareware and free samples of Windows are also "free software"?
The fact that someone uses a term incorrectly for the context in which they are attempting to use it is not a reason to say "the term doesn't mean anything".
I know this is not the OSI definition and not yours, but it is the way people who are not familiar with the OSI definition will probably understand the term.
Particularly when the FSF is actively pushing it as an alternate definition. Stop helping them undermine it.
And the term is also used by the guys in suits and they use it in a different way. I was merely stating that the term "open source" is only clearly defined if you know the OSI definition.
No, they don't use it a different way. They are talking about the results of open source that they care about. It's still the same thing. If it was called "wakalix" they'd still be talking about what wakalix could do for them. When they talk about the GPL they say "I look at the GPL and I see a business model" and go on to use dual licensing to leverage the mindshare of open source developers while still keeping essential control of the software because they're the only ones who can grant closed-source license to the same package.
That kind of ambiguity is part of humans and language. You can't get away from it.
But please read his comment carefully - he said the BSD license is not a good thing (I don't agree here), but he doesn't say it's not a free software license, which it is.
If a free software license embodies his "four freedoms", and he says right there that the BSD license doesn't, then all that means is that he's learned to be ambiguous about the term "free software".
I only said that the term "open source" is sometimes used in a way that forgets about freedom.
You said that it spurns freedom. Which is complete and utter manure.
"the rhethoric of 'open source' focuses on the potential to make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle."
I think you're confusing a group of people who are trying to sell a product with the people who are creating the product. If you want to know why people are involved in a project, then ask them, don't ask the guys in suits.
It is the freedom and the community that makes everything else possible. The project does not exist without a community. The community doesn't exist without the freedom. The principle? Well, some of us are in it for the principle, others are in it for the software, but either way they're in it because they're passionate about it. I don't know anyone involved in an open source project as a volunteer is in there because 'its an effective way to make good software', they're in it because the project engages their passions. Without BOTH the community and the freedom to benefit from their work they wouldn't be there.
And that's true whether the project is Linux or OpenBSD. Talk to any of the OpenBSD team and tell me that they're not passionate about the project.
OPEN SOURCE IS NOT ABOUT SHUNNING FREEDOM AND COMMUNITY
Principle? I use the BSDL and the MITL from principle, because I do not believe that you need to use legal goads to keep a project open, and I believe that it's important to make that point with something that matters to me.
OPEN SOURCE IS NOT ABOUT SHUNNING PRINCIPLE
Just because someone's principles are not the same as yours does not mean they do not exist. Telling someone that they are shunning freedom, community, and principle because their principles don't match yours, is pretty damn offensive.
RMS would say it is immoral, but it is not a requirement free software to restrict proprietary forks.
He was saying it in 2004:
RMS: This is what ensures that the users have the four freedoms. The BSD licenses do not ensure this, and thus not all users have these freedoms.
The BSD licenses (there were more than one of them) do not give more freedom. What they offer, to those who can take advantage of it, is power: power to deny others' freedom. That is not a good thing.
If you can't improve it, it's not open source. It may be derived from an open source project, but if what you got is not something you can improve (even if only by forking), it's not itself open source any more. That's why Microsoft's original shared source licenses and the classic qmail license are not open source licenses.
The difference between the GPL and the majority of open source licenses is whether a closed-source fork of an open-source project is possible without the collaboration of the original copyright owners.
Open source promoters will tell you that their way makes development superior because everyone can look at the code (and in some cases even improve it).
the "definition" given by the free software foundation and rms has basically always been the same since the early nineties
But I have been writing free-as-in-speech-but-not-GPL software since the '70s, so that's the range of time I'm talking about.
In the mid-80s, Stallman got downright grindstone about distinguishing "free software" as software that restricted some freedoms to guarantee others. A lot of people had been writing software that didn't make that restriction, and didn't see the necessity for that distinction, and it took years for Stallman and others to give ground enough to CONDESCEND to grant that maybe these other voices had a legitimate place. IF they accommodated the Free Software Foundation. IF they changed their licenses. And only when he absolutely had to.
So "since the early '90s"? The problems that led to the necessity for a label for software that's free-as-in-speech-but-not-GPL started almost a decade before that.
RMS is right that although the term "open source" was thought to reduce the ambiguity of the term "free software", it is now often used in a way which focuses on the development model, i.e. you can look at the code (or even change it), but does not emphasize the freedom that should come with it.
That's circular reasoning, because it was RMS's insistence that "emphasizing the freedom that should come with it" is the point that led to the creation of the term "open source" to reduce the ambiguity that he'd created. All he's doing here is trying to recreate the problem that made it necessary to come up with a term for "free software that's not RMS's kind of free software".
open source is unfortunately also often used in a way that does not grant users the four rights that free software guarantees them.
I think you're demonstrating the problem.
Go read my original message, and my other responses, keeping in mind the fact that there are people who genuinely believe in a kind of free software that doesn't need to restrict proprietary forks... because that's all they are... forks. Who believe that no matter whether there are proprietary forks or not, that's all they are, forks. Who are not convinced by Stallman's arguments about proprietary forks outcompeting the free forks. This is not about "freedom versus a development model", it's about two different ideas of what free-as-in-speech means.
right now we have two ambiguous terms.
No, we have two unambiguous terms for different kinds of free-as-in-speech software. One that depends on the law to keep it free, and one that depends on itself to keep it free.
"Open source" means you have access to the source code in one way or another.
That's what Microsoft tried to sell, with their first pass at creating "open source" licenses. They got knocked back, and eventually came up with some pretty reasonable ones that the OSI ended up approving.
So it seems like Microsoft is capable of learning. Even if Bill Gates isn't.
are you familiar with the ideas of the free software foundation?
In 2008, 1998, or 1988? Everyone changes over time, changes their mind, learns, grows, unless they're dead.
I'm familiar with the ideas expressed by RMS and others in the GBU community during the period I'm discussing. The section I hilighted is a pretty good summary of them: the restrictions encoded in the GPL were frequently and vociferously presented as the only way to make sure that your software was REALLY free. "Free Software" and "GPLed Software" were strongly identified with each other, and all the other licenses were for dupes afraid of freedom.
This is all understandable, people who aren't passionate about things don't create effective movements, and people who are passionate about them tend to see things in black and white. But it did create a division in the whatever-you-call-it community, and the term Open Source and the Open Source Definition was one result.
But, in the end, it's trivial to customize and it's a kick-ass gaming, 3D, and development environment compared to just about any other gaming or 3D platform.
Have you looked at the API? It's a kickass API for building low performance simulations that distribute amazingly well, but think about writing a physics engine that supports a few thousand objects that has to run every interaction through that event loop... even if it wasn't written in an interpreted language.
"Then RMS said that "free software" was software that couldn't be made non-free."
no. bsd software is free software. even the old 4 clauses license is free software.
I'm sure you're familiar with the preamble to the GPL:
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
This draws a pretty strong distinction between Free Software and software that just happens to be freely redistributable.
The difference between free software and open source is the focus. While free software (in the RMS definition) means the user has to have certain rights when he receives software (the four freedoms), open source is more a model of development.
OK, that explains a number of really weird outbursts I've seen on mailing lists where someone insists that a project isn't open source, when it's clearly under an open source license. They've internalized this definition.
Given the history of the term, I don't think that RMS is the person to go to for the definition. The OSI definition of Open Source is all about the licensing.
While both can mean the same, open source is also used by companies for proprietary software of which the source code is published. So, you're not allowed to change the code, but it is still open because you can look at it.
No, even Microsoft has given up trying to call that "open source", they now call it "shared source".
First, free software was basically open source, and it was published in source code in magazines and on user group tapes and places like that.
Then there was freeware, which was binary only. I don't know if this counts as some kind of free software or a separate term.
Then RMS said that "free software" was software that couldn't be made non-free. A lot of people thought that was a bit over the top and 10 or 15 years later the term "open source" was settled on.
So we have GPLed "free software" and MIT/BSD/CC/... "open source" software.
Now we have this:
"There's free software and then there's open source," he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries.
What he's calling "free software" means "free samples", not even freeware. And I'm sure that RMS will disagree with his identification of the GPL with "open source".
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a working windows box dedicated to doing a couple of tasks,
But now you've got two whole computers, on for those tasks, and one for the other things you are doing on the computer. That costs even more.
I also think the term "open source" was created to reduce the confusion of the term "free software" and not to protest Richard Stallman
I didn't say it was to "protest" anything.
I said Stallman created the confusion, and made the new term necessary.
Now Stallman is trying to create confusion around the term Open Source instead.
That word, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
If you compare Mac and non-Mac hardware solutions to almost any realistic set of requirements, the Mac solution is at least 40% more than the comparable Windows solution.
To get Macs to look cost competitive with non-Macs, you need to
* Define the requirements as "exactly what this Mac has".
* Ignore the value of any features in the PC you're comparing it with that aren't in the Mac.
What makes Macs competitive is the software. The hardware is still super-expensive.
I'm still waiting for Apple to fix some bugs from 2004.
Huh. I had the HDD in my Thinkpad go south. I unscrewed one fat screw, pulled out the hard drive sled, slotted a new drive in, and restored everything from backup.
When the HDD in my Macbook died I had a choice of being without my laptop for a week, at least, or go into the Genius Bar at the Apple Store (while I was recovering from the flu) and wait for the Genius to reinstall it, insist that I didn't want the OS installed because I was going to overwrite it with my backup anyway, and drive home.
And that was AFTER the phone call to Applecare and waiting for the Apple Store to call me to say they had the right part in. Had to run my Macbook from an external drive for a week while I was waiting.
Why would you want to run windows in parrallels?
Because you like it better than VMWare Fusion?
Personally, I prefer Fusion, but to each his own. Parallels does have better snapshot capabilities, but I can run the same VM image in Fusion and in other VMWare products.
instead of 1 thing that can fail youve just spent a shitload of money to add 2 points of failure to your system.
Instead of one thing that's got a high probability of failure I've replaced it with one that's got a lower probability of failure, and locked down the high failure rate one into a VM that I can snapshot, revert, and even when it does break I've still got 90% of my stuff outside the broken VM image.
There's enough people looking for a dock that there's multiple companies selling kludges that sort of give you some of the functionality of a dock at much greater expense... and selling enough to keep doing it.
And I'd rather Apple tuned down the "simple and elegant" knob a bit. Simplicity and elegance means my Macbook Pro has one of the worst keyboards on a laptop, ever, and I have to go cap-in-hand to the "genius bar" to get a bad hard drive replaced, and the way they cram everything in... when I'm doing anything complex like encoding a movie I have to pull the battery out or it overheats. This isn't "feature bloat" this is "minimum requirements". If it wasn't for the OS I would never spend one dime on an Apple product.
I've never had a problem uninstalling Quicktime. It's just a media player and codec encapsulation format. What's the problem you have with it?
Yes, I've bought music from iTunes. All of which I've MIX-BURN-RIPped the DRM out of. Yes, I know there's a theoretical loss of quality, but I can't hear it in overproduced distorted popular music.
So it's not the folks using "open source" who are saying that "open source" is not about freedom and community, it's Richard Stallman. Which is basically the point I was making, that this definition of "open source" as just a development model is something that's being pushed from *outside* the community that identifies what they are doing as "open source".
The only thing I disagreed with in your first statement was that RMS claimed free software was software that couldn't be made non-free.
That's what the "four freedoms" are all about. That's what the text I quoted from the preamble to the GPL is about. That is what the distinction between "Free Software" in the GNU sense and other kinds of "Free" software was. It got toned down in the early years of the FSF, but it was clear enough then for non-GPL users to get hit with plenty of flak about not *really* being free software... and what you're seeing now feels like plausible deniability to me.
If you didn't have to go through the experience I guess it's harder to see.
Who were you quoting?
One of the people you are saying is pushing a different definition of "open source"?
Or one of the people I am saying is pushing a different definition of "open source"?
But some people do not use in a way the term is defined by the OSI and from a linguistic point of view, calling Microsoft's "shared source" software open source, is acceptable, but only from a linguistic point of view.
The people who are pushing this as a distinct meaning of open source are primarily the Free Software Foundation. Even Microsoft has stopped trying to do this. This is RMS trying to get people to quit using "open source" to refer to open source.
But don't you see that for someone who does not know the OSI definition, the original shared source licenses are also "open source"?
But don't you see that for someone who does not know the FSF definition, shareware and free samples of Windows are also "free software"?
The fact that someone uses a term incorrectly for the context in which they are attempting to use it is not a reason to say "the term doesn't mean anything".
I know this is not the OSI definition and not yours, but it is the way people who are not familiar with the OSI definition will probably understand the term.
Particularly when the FSF is actively pushing it as an alternate definition. Stop helping them undermine it.
And the term is also used by the guys in suits and they use it in a different way. I was merely stating that the term "open source" is only clearly defined if you know the OSI definition.
No, they don't use it a different way. They are talking about the results of open source that they care about. It's still the same thing. If it was called "wakalix" they'd still be talking about what wakalix could do for them. When they talk about the GPL they say "I look at the GPL and I see a business model" and go on to use dual licensing to leverage the mindshare of open source developers while still keeping essential control of the software because they're the only ones who can grant closed-source license to the same package.
That kind of ambiguity is part of humans and language. You can't get away from it.
But please read his comment carefully - he said the BSD license is not a good thing (I don't agree here), but he doesn't say it's not a free software license, which it is.
If a free software license embodies his "four freedoms", and he says right there that the BSD license doesn't, then all that means is that he's learned to be ambiguous about the term "free software".
I only said that the term "open source" is sometimes used in a way that forgets about freedom.
You said that it spurns freedom. Which is complete and utter manure.
I think you're confusing a group of people who are trying to sell a product with the people who are creating the product. If you want to know why people are involved in a project, then ask them, don't ask the guys in suits.
It is the freedom and the community that makes everything else possible. The project does not exist without a community. The community doesn't exist without the freedom. The principle? Well, some of us are in it for the principle, others are in it for the software, but either way they're in it because they're passionate about it. I don't know anyone involved in an open source project as a volunteer is in there because 'its an effective way to make good software', they're in it because the project engages their passions. Without BOTH the community and the freedom to benefit from their work they wouldn't be there.
And that's true whether the project is Linux or OpenBSD. Talk to any of the OpenBSD team and tell me that they're not passionate about the project.
OPEN SOURCE IS NOT ABOUT SHUNNING FREEDOM AND COMMUNITY
Principle? I use the BSDL and the MITL from principle, because I do not believe that you need to use legal goads to keep a project open, and I believe that it's important to make that point with something that matters to me.
OPEN SOURCE IS NOT ABOUT SHUNNING PRINCIPLE
Just because someone's principles are not the same as yours does not mean they do not exist. Telling someone that they are shunning freedom, community, and principle because their principles don't match yours, is pretty damn offensive.
RMS would say it is immoral, but it is not a requirement free software to restrict proprietary forks.
He was saying it in 2004:
i have to wonder if there really is such a widespread need, given that in the least 20 years nobody came up with another marketable name...
It's "open source", by the OSI open source definition.
"open source" doesn't qualify.
I should quote Inigo Montoya here.
If you can't improve it, it's not open source. It may be derived from an open source project, but if what you got is not something you can improve (even if only by forking), it's not itself open source any more. That's why Microsoft's original shared source licenses and the classic qmail license are not open source licenses.
The difference between the GPL and the majority of open source licenses is whether a closed-source fork of an open-source project is possible without the collaboration of the original copyright owners.
You have absolutely ALL your terminology almost completely backwards.
Which is, after all, exactly the problem with Bill Gates saying stuff like this.
It confuses people.
Open source promoters will tell you that their way makes development superior because everyone can look at the code (and in some cases even improve it).
If you can't improve it, it's not open source.
the "definition" given by the free software foundation and rms has basically always been the same since the early nineties
But I have been writing free-as-in-speech-but-not-GPL software since the '70s, so that's the range of time I'm talking about.
In the mid-80s, Stallman got downright grindstone about distinguishing "free software" as software that restricted some freedoms to guarantee others. A lot of people had been writing software that didn't make that restriction, and didn't see the necessity for that distinction, and it took years for Stallman and others to give ground enough to CONDESCEND to grant that maybe these other voices had a legitimate place. IF they accommodated the Free Software Foundation. IF they changed their licenses. And only when he absolutely had to.
So "since the early '90s"? The problems that led to the necessity for a label for software that's free-as-in-speech-but-not-GPL started almost a decade before that.
RMS is right that although the term "open source" was thought to reduce the ambiguity of the term "free software", it is now often used in a way which focuses on the development model, i.e. you can look at the code (or even change it), but does not emphasize the freedom that should come with it.
That's circular reasoning, because it was RMS's insistence that "emphasizing the freedom that should come with it" is the point that led to the creation of the term "open source" to reduce the ambiguity that he'd created. All he's doing here is trying to recreate the problem that made it necessary to come up with a term for "free software that's not RMS's kind of free software".
open source is unfortunately also often used in a way that does not grant users the four rights that free software guarantees them.
I think you're demonstrating the problem.
Go read my original message, and my other responses, keeping in mind the fact that there are people who genuinely believe in a kind of free software that doesn't need to restrict proprietary forks... because that's all they are... forks. Who believe that no matter whether there are proprietary forks or not, that's all they are, forks. Who are not convinced by Stallman's arguments about proprietary forks outcompeting the free forks. This is not about "freedom versus a development model", it's about two different ideas of what free-as-in-speech means.
right now we have two ambiguous terms.
No, we have two unambiguous terms for different kinds of free-as-in-speech software. One that depends on the law to keep it free, and one that depends on itself to keep it free.
"Open source" means you have access to the source code in one way or another.
That's what Microsoft tried to sell, with their first pass at creating "open source" licenses. They got knocked back, and eventually came up with some pretty reasonable ones that the OSI ended up approving.
So it seems like Microsoft is capable of learning. Even if Bill Gates isn't.
are you familiar with the ideas of the free software foundation?
In 2008, 1998, or 1988? Everyone changes over time, changes their mind, learns, grows, unless they're dead.
I'm familiar with the ideas expressed by RMS and others in the GBU community during the period I'm discussing. The section I hilighted is a pretty good summary of them: the restrictions encoded in the GPL were frequently and vociferously presented as the only way to make sure that your software was REALLY free. "Free Software" and "GPLed Software" were strongly identified with each other, and all the other licenses were for dupes afraid of freedom.
This is all understandable, people who aren't passionate about things don't create effective movements, and people who are passionate about them tend to see things in black and white. But it did create a division in the whatever-you-call-it community, and the term Open Source and the Open Source Definition was one result.
But, in the end, it's trivial to customize and it's a kick-ass gaming, 3D, and development environment compared to just about any other gaming or 3D platform.
Have you looked at the API? It's a kickass API for building low performance simulations that distribute amazingly well, but think about writing a physics engine that supports a few thousand objects that has to run every interaction through that event loop... even if it wasn't written in an interpreted language.
no. bsd software is free software. even the old 4 clauses license is free software.
I'm sure you're familiar with the preamble to the GPL:
This draws a pretty strong distinction between Free Software and software that just happens to be freely redistributable.
The difference between free software and open source is the focus. While free software (in the RMS definition) means the user has to have certain rights when he receives software (the four freedoms), open source is more a model of development.
OK, that explains a number of really weird outbursts I've seen on mailing lists where someone insists that a project isn't open source, when it's clearly under an open source license. They've internalized this definition.
Given the history of the term, I don't think that RMS is the person to go to for the definition. The OSI definition of Open Source is all about the licensing.
While both can mean the same, open source is also used by companies for proprietary software of which the source code is published. So, you're not allowed to change the code, but it is still open because you can look at it.
No, even Microsoft has given up trying to call that "open source", they now call it "shared source".
In particular, that violates the very first clause in the Open Source Definition.
Or is it the fourth?
First, free software was basically open source, and it was published in source code in magazines and on user group tapes and places like that.
Then there was freeware, which was binary only. I don't know if this counts as some kind of free software or a separate term.
Then RMS said that "free software" was software that couldn't be made non-free. A lot of people thought that was a bit over the top and 10 or 15 years later the term "open source" was settled on.
So we have GPLed "free software" and MIT/BSD/CC/... "open source" software.
Now we have this:
"There's free software and then there's open source," he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries.
What he's calling "free software" means "free samples", not even freeware. And I'm sure that RMS will disagree with his identification of the GPL with "open source".
Sheesh.