 |
 |
The descriptor "open source" can also be used to describe information sources that are in the public domain, as well as being used in relation to software, and indeed this is probably a longer established usage. The classic example is in government - for example GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters, the UK intelligence and security agency), which employs large numbers of library and information professionals. The term features in its current careers information for information specialists, which describes activities as including "delivering a range of Information Management, Open Source Research and Information Governance services" (see http://www.gchq-careers.co.uk/roles-at-gchq/general/information-specialists/ ). Sheila Corrall On 9 March 2013 21:14, Gretchen Whitney <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Teresa Welsh writes > > Open-source was used to mean "freely available" >> > > Open-source means that a piece of software comes with source code. This > allows the purchaser of the software to study how the software works and > to potentially change the way it works. This has nothing whatsover to > do with the software being freely available. > > - perhaps a better term would have been "open access". >> > > Yes. > > There is still a difference between freely available and open access > but this is more subtle and subject to debate. > > > Cheers, > > Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/**krichel<http://openlib.org/home/krichel> > http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 > skype: thomaskrichel > > -- Sheila Corrall Professor and Chair, Library & Information Science Program University of Pittsburgh School of Information Sciences Information Sciences Building, Room 605C 135 North Bellefield Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 412-624-9317, Fax: 412-648-7001 [log in to unmask] www.ischool.pitt.edu