>But I disagree about other topic that Free Software and Open Source are absolutely same and only a name difference. Also RMS doesn’t think Free Software and Open Source are same.

At your link RMS argues with philosophy and in “what feeling is created by a name”. That’s what i trying to say too. It’s just a question of if “foo” is the better name or “bar”.

As i said before i don’t agree with RMS on every topic. One of these points is his “two movements” interpretation. For me there is only one movement. I call it Free Software movement and someone else will call it Open Source movement. But we both aim for the same goal -> Free Software (even if he calls it Open Source).

I talk always about Free Software and depending who is my audience i emphasise the social benefits, freedom, educational benefits, economic benefits, development models, etc. I don’t need different names for it because at the end it is all Free Software. If i would switch the name from argument to argument i would just create the confusions i have tried to described before.

Basically i accept everyones freedom to use the name he wants (even if i consider it somehow unfair and against the spirit of science to rename something which was already named by his “discoverer” or the person who has defined it). But i really hope that people make a decision and than uses one term constantly to avoid confusions as described before. I know sometimes it is hard to make decisions…

But I disagree about other topic that Free Software and Open Source are absolutely same and only a name difference. Also RMS doesn’t think Free Software and Open Source are same.

http://www.nation.lk/2008/01/20/busi3.htm (Check “What is the difference between ‘Free Software’ and ‘Open Source’?”

Hay Uthpala, that’s what I meant from “basically”. Its concept and focus are different, but in physical world it is the same thing - source is free, edit and distributable. etc. But Sorry about the confusion, guess I’m becoming lousy with words.

Here i agree with you

>So in current practical world we have to tolerate at minimum this kind of patent issues if we are to co-exist with commercial world.

Here i disagree. First it’s not about co-existing with the “commercial world”. Commercial Software is not the opposite of Free Software probably you mean “co-exist with proprietary world”. I know some really successfully commercial free software companies.

Yes we have to live with that, hopefully while trying to change it. But that doesn’t mean that we have to say that it is good.

E.g. i have to accept that mp3 is patented. But i don’t think it is good that mp3 is patented and i hope we will abandon software patents in the future.

>If it’s about Gnome I would use “Free Software” but if it’s about “Java” I would use Open Source

But why? Java is (or at least will be) licensed under a Free Software license, so why call it Open Source? Also imagine that you talking to someone who is not so familiar with the history of Free Software. Now you tell him something about Free Software and guided by some curious definition you say sometimes Free Software and sometimes Open Source. This will probably confuse your conversational partner completely because he will search for a difference where no difference exist.

>But why and how we make a distinction then?

It’s because 1998 a group of people thought that Free Software is a bad name and they decided to rename it.
One of these persons (Bruce Perens) said already one year later that this was a mistake and should have never happened: http://groups.google.de/group/muc.lists.debian.user/msg/c8001c56bdf54753

>There has to be a boundary if RMS doesn’t agree Free Software is Open Source

Afaik RMS agree that Open Source is Free Software. He just doesn’t agree to call Free Software Open Source. That’s a debate about naming and not a debate about differences in the kind of software we are talking about.
Read also http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
RMS argue about naming and not about technical difference. That’s for example why he calls Java also Free Software.

Even if you don’t agree with RMS on every topic, I have also some dissension, I would say we should call it Free Software just for respect of the person who defined it first and named it. That’s a good tradition in the history of science and we shoud adhere to it.

But even if someone disagree on this point i would ask him to use the name he wants constantly. Nothing is more confusing to new people in our community than talking to them in one sentence about “Free Software”, in the second about “Open Source” and than about “FOSS” or “FLOSS”. They will naturally search some differences where no differences exists. E.g. someone told me some months ago that the difference between “Open Source Software” and “FOSS” is that “Open Source Software” can cost money and “FLOSS aka Free Open Source Software” is gratis Open Source Software which you can download from the Internet. That’s just one of many confusions which we create by mixing this terms even in one text or one talk.

>Open Source should be used when adapting free software to a business model. But that’s me anyway.

Yes I know Open Source and Free Software basically the same thing. But we tend to use these two words according to the context we are talking about. If it’s about Gnome I would use “Free Software” but if it’s about “Java” I would use Open Source.

But why and how we make a distinction then ? There has to be a boundary if RMS doesn’t agree Free Software is Open Source, isn’t it ? So that’s the way I tried to explain how I made my definition of boundary regarding Open Source and Free Software.

>because the owning company may completely depend on that technology

I understand your opinion and I respect that. But world isn’t so high in morals to thinks like that. So in current practical world we have to tolerate at minimum this kind of patent issues if we are to co-exist with commercial world.

First I have to say the event has been wonderful and hats off for taking the lead in organizing such an amazing event and
giving Sri Lankans the chance to meet this great guy.

Yes, I agree with you regarding patents. Most of patents are absurd and most companies use them unethically. It’s very hard to find something that’s 100% new and thus very unfair to patent some abstract idea. But it doesn’t seem like ending any time soon.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/

Btw, in future FOSS events, if some representation from UoM is needed count me in.

Can you explain this?
I don’t understand what you want to say. Open Source and Free Software is technically the same. So you don’t need Open Source to adapt Free Software to a business model because Free Software is already Open Source. Or historically correct: Open Source is Free Software.
It’s just different words but nothing which makes a different e.g. in adapting Free Software.

>because the owning company may completely depend on that technology

And all computer users and at the end humankind (because our life depends more and more on software) depend son that technology too. So why is the company more important than everyone else?

Btw on the point you said:

“Some technologies such as compression technologies may be hidden from the public eye because the owning company may completely depend on that technology and releasing the source may mean basically the destruction of the firm.”

this is one of those rare cases where I think software patents actually do make sense, provided the complete algorithm is patented as opposed to an abstract idea and there was a shorted life span on the exclusivity. You see because if this compression is so miraculous then the way to go about it shouldn’t be to make it proprietary which leaves room for someone to still possibly figure it out anyways, difficult as it may be but to protect the innovation - the algorithm.

From a security stand point I’d be more secure with an open algorithm than a closed one when it comes to anything related to my data.

Yes, his speech at SLIIT (the one I participated) is great, it contained most of his ideals regarding free software expressed in a one and half hour speech.