Editing The Open Source Definition (section)

== History ==
There have been several attempts to define open source and free software. Amongst the earliest was [[Free Software Foundation]]'s [[The Free Software Definition|Free Software Definition]], which then defined as the three freedoms of Free Software (Freedom Zero was added later). Published versions of FSF's Free Software Definition existed as early as 1986, having been published in the first edition of the (now defunct) GNU's Bulletin.<ref>Richard M. Stallman, ''What is the Free Software Foundation?'', [https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt GNU's Bulletin, Volume 1, No.1, February 1986]</ref>

===Debian Free Software Guidelines===
The '''Debian Free Software Guidelines''' ('''DFSG''') was first published together with the first version of the [[Debian Social Contract]] in July 1997.<ref name="1997-msg00017">{{cite web|author=Bruce Perens|url=http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1997/msg00017.html|title=Debian's "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community|work=debian-announce mailing list|date=1997-07-04}}</ref> The primary author was [[Bruce Perens]], with input from the Debian developers during a month-long discussion on a private mailing list, as part of the larger Debian Social Contract. Perens was copied to an email discussion between Ean Schuessler (then of Debian) and Donnie Barnes of Red Hat, in which Schuessler accused Red Hat of never elucidating its social contract with the Linux community. Perens realized that Debian did not have any formal social contract either, and immediately started creating one. The (then) Three Freedoms, which preceded the drafting and promulgation of the DFSG, were unknown to its authors.<ref>Bruce Perens: "[http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815 when I had to write license guidelines for Debian, the Four Freedoms document was unknown.]"</ref>

The guidelines were:
# Free redistribution.
# Inclusion of source code.
# Allowing for modifications and derived works.
# Integrity of the author's source code (as a compromise).
# No discrimination against persons or groups.
# No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use.
# The license needs to apply to all to whom the program is redistributed.
# License must not be specific to a product.
# License must not restrict other software.
# Example licenses: The [[GNU General Public License|GNU GPL]], [[BSD license|BSD]], and [[Artistic License|Artistic]] licenses are examples of licenses considered free.<ref name="1997-msg00017" /><ref>{{cite web
 |url=http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
 |title=Debian Social Contract
 |publisher=Debian
 |date=2004-04-26
}}</ref>

===Open source===
As [[Netscape]] released the open-source [[Mozilla]] browser in 1998, [[Bruce Perens]] again drafted a set of open-source guidelines to go with the release.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Overly |first1=Michael R. |title=The Open Source Handbook |date=2003 |publisher=Pike & Fischer |isbn=978-0-937275-12-2 |page=5 |language=en}}</ref> It has been claimed that the Open Source Definition was created by re-titling the exact text of the DFSG.

A modified version of this definition was adopted by the [[Open Source Initiative]] (OSI) as the Open Source Definition.<ref name="b733"/><ref>{{cite book | last=Katz | first=Andrew | title=Open Source Law, Policy and Practice |chapter=Everything Open | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=2022 | isbn=978-0-19-260687-7 | chapter-url=https://academic.oup.com/book/44727/chapter/378969640 |page=521 }}</ref> The OSI uses the label "open source", rather than "free software", because it felt that the latter term had undesirable ideological and political freight, and it wanted to focus on the pragmatic and business-friendly arguments for [[open-source software]].<ref name="b733"/> It adopted a closed rather than membership-driven organizational model in order to draft the definition and work together with a wider variety of stakeholders than other free or open-source projects.<ref name="b733"/>

Once the DFSG became the Open Source Definition, [[Richard Stallman]] saw the need to differentiate [[free software]] from [[Open-source software|open source]] and promoted the Free Software Definition.<ref>{{cite web|author=Richard Stallman|author-link=Richard Stallman|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html|title=Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software|work=GNU website}}</ref>

===Debian diverges===
In November 1998, [[Ian Jackson (computer programmer)|Ian Jackson]] and others proposed several changes in a draft versioned 1.4, but the changes were never made official. Jackson stated<ref>Ian Jackson: [http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/11/msg01944.html Draft new DFSG], debian-devel mailing list</ref> that the problems were "loose wording" and the patch clause.

The Debian General Resolution 2004-003,<ref>[http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social contract]</ref> titled "Editorial amendments to the social contract", modified the Social Contract. The proposer Andrew Suffield stated:<ref>Andrew Suffield: [http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/01/msg00692.html Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)], debian-vote mailing list</ref>

: "The rule is 'this resolution only changes the letter of the law, not the spirit'. Mostly it changes the wording of the social contract to better reflect what it is supposed to mean, and this is mostly in light of issues that were not considered when it was originally written."

However, the change of the sentence "We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software" into "We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free" resulted in the release manager, Anthony Towns, making a practical change:<ref>Anthony Towns: [http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg01929.html Social Contract GR's effect on Sarge], debian-devel mailing list</ref>

: "As [SC #1] is no longer limited to 'software', and as this decision was made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe I can justify the policy decisions to exempt documentation, firmware, or content any longer, as the Social Contract has been amended to cover all these areas."

This prompted another General Resolution, 2004–004,<ref>[http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 General Resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003]</ref> in which the developers voted overwhelmingly against immediate action, and decided to postpone those changes until the next release (whose development started a year later, in June 2005).