MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-05-23 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [rick@linuxmafia.com: Re: [Balug-talk] [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a sorry day for The Linux?Journal]
|
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:18:06PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Rick Moen wrote:
>
> I (continue to) dispute my fried Richard's assertion that the open
> source movement has only practical (pragmatic) goals. It has in my
> experience the same goals as does the free software movement -- but uses
> differing marketing terminology to advance those goals.
>
> Your experience is very different from mine.
>
> In my experience, statements that advocate "open source" cite only
> practical goals, such as making software powerful and reliable. They
> argue that software which is not open source is likely not to be
> powerful and reliable; but when confronted with the non-free program
> which IS powerful and reliable, they have no criticism to make.
>
> You can see this clearly in the OSI web site, in the statements of
> prominent open source opinion-leaders such as Torvalds, and in the
> magazines and events that talk about open source.
>
> Nick Moffitt wrote:
>
> I wish I could remember who it was that first observed "Open Source
> gives the same answer to every question that Free Software does, except
> 'Why?'"
>
> There is a particular range of questions on which the answers may not
> differ. These are the questions that concern free software
> development projects. For questions involving the use of non-free
> software, the two philosophies often lead to very different answers.
>
> To mention one real example, consider the question, "If you are
> developing a free program, and you find that a non-free version
> control system helps you do the work, should you use it?" Torvalds
> answered that question "yes" a few years ago. I would be surprised if
> the OSI web site presents any argument to the contrary. The use of
> BitKeeper for Linux development was ended by a person who advocates
> free software as a matter of freedom.
>
> Another real example is, "Should you add non-free drivers, programming
> platforms, and apps to GNU/Linux distributions?" The free software
> movement says, "No, because non-free software is unethical." By
> contrast, supporters of open source typically consider their inclusion
> a positive feature.
>
> Another real example is, "There is a convenient program, or operating
> system, which is not free. Should we start a large project to develop
> a free replacement, or should we just use that non-free program?" The
> free software movement says, "We can't use the non-free program, since
> it tramples our freedom." The open source philosophy says, "If it
> isn't open source, it might tend to be buggy in the future." That's
> not a powerful motivating factor.
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://fairuse.nylxs.com
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
|
|
