MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-05-24 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [rick@linuxmafia.com: Re: [Balug-talk] [rick@linuxmafia.com: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a sorry day for The Linux?Journal]]
|
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen -----
X-Original-To: balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 23:14:06 -0700
To: balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
In-Reply-To: <20060524042010.GE28343-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com>
X-Mas: Bah humbug.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
From: Rick Moen
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP:
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rick-at-linuxmafia.com
Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] [rick-at-linuxmafia.com: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a
sorry day for The Linux?Journal]
X-BeenThere: balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: balug-talk-bounces-at-lists.balug.org
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 18700
Ruben kindly forwarded a second post from Richard:
>> I (continue to) dispute my friend 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.
Actually, this subtly but fundamentally changes the subject on the fly.
Please note carefully what I said: I said that in my experience the
_goals_ are the same, but different marketing terminology gets used.
You then cite "statements that advocate" -- but those are, in fact, the
aforementioned marketing terminology. You essentially conflated goals
with tactics, there. Thus, you didn't actually compare our experience
(of the matter under discussion).
My apples were indeed not orange -- but the oranges were in a different
produce bin. ;->
As to "having no criticism to make" when confronted with a powerful and
reliable non-free codebase, I find that difficult to believe. Not being
an open-source advocate, I nonetheless think I can simulate one at need:
Proprietary package $foo is claimed to be powerful and reliable,
but that is a mirage: $foo can be maintained and developed only
as long as its owner permits, and can be adapted only to situations
and needs he/she authorises. The owner may retire to the country
and take up beekeeping tomorrow; $foo then becomes unmaintainable
abandonware. Our computing needs to be planned not just for today,
but for a variety of tomorrows. Something that potentially has the
remaining development life of a... mayfly is not "reliable" in any
meaningful sense, and it's "power" cannot safely be relied on.
We're much smarter to rely on open source alternative $bar, whose
advances may not have quite reached $foo's, but unlike $foo's are
ours permanently, and lack the unacceptable restrictive baggage.
Any resemblance to Prof. D.J. Bernstein's primary offerings is strictly
intentional.
> 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.
An argument from the standpoint of lack of evidence, especially on a
matter not within OSI's purview in the first place, seems an amazingly
weak one.
That aside, it should be nonetheless noted that, when McVoy approached
OSI on the subject in 1999, they made a special point of giving him a
ringingly unwelcoming response:
http://lwn.net/1999/features/BitKeeper.php3
Note the limits thereof: OSI made absolutely crystal clear that
BitKeeper, even under its original and less-noxious licence, was not
within a country mile of being open source per their DFSG-equivalent
definition. And then they stopped there, because that's where the scope
of their concern ended.
OSI are not the people I would look to for crusading pursuit of freedom
_per se_, but in General Semantics terms the map of their promised
land's territory seems to pretty much exactly match yours.
> 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.
Oh, now you're defining "[typical] supporters of open source" to fit
your rhetorical needs of the moment.
First, you're being vague: Which "supporters", specifically?
Proprietary-software corporations and patent-constrained hardware
manufacturers who would happen to find that outcome convenient? That
seems more than a little facile. Second, any idea that is to be judged
by a selective subset of its casual adherents is in deep trouble. You
cannot fairly draw a conclusion about the idea's merits from _that_.
Third, you're replicating the careless error of that other guy on this
mailing list who (badly) quoted Torvalds as supposedly being an obvious
spokesman for open source (when he has in fact not purported to do that
at all): You're rather blatantly disregarding the _truly_ obvious
spokesmen for that movement -- the people who for almost a decade have
_been_ the literal spokesmen: If you're trying to establish that such
statements are characteristic of open source, then where are the
quotations to that effect from OSI Board members and official spokemen?
Larry Rosen? Russell Nelson? Michael Tiemann?
I don't think you can, because I know to one degree or another all of
those people and most of the others, and your portrayal simply does not
reflect their views.
_______________________________________________
balug-talk mailing list
balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
http://lists.balug.org/listinfo.cgi/balug-talk-balug.org
----- End forwarded message -----
--
__________________________
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....
|
|
