On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, engineered to
reflect the Free Software definition ...
Yes, that's true, but it was modified in several key points. OSS and FS
developers have a very similar approach to developing software, but our goals
are different. So why does it come to a shock that the open source definition
greatly resembles the four rights of free software?
Err... Excuse me? Whole point for whom?
Free Software is not about freedom of choice. That's an OSI slogan
for "if you like, you can shoot your own foot, regardless of whether
the shrapnel hurts people around you".
http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/139#1
And in Rms's opinion, a woman's freedom to make decisions about her own body
are hers to choose, regardless of whether this means murdering an innocent
child. (Do I see a conflict here?)
When it comes right down to it, the FSF is all about freedom, just as long as
it benefits them. They couldn't care less whether our society is productive.
For them, the software is not top priority, as they have been very vocal
about, and as Linus mentioned earlier in this thread.
Free Software is about respect for the four freedoms.
Yes, there *are* four freedoms, and they are very good. However, what happens
when we have *only* these four freedoms? The FSF would do anything within
their power to impose their "religious" beliefs upon the entire world,
regardless of what's really good for us.
If we don't have the freedom of choice, then are we really free? Each person
must be free to make *his*own* decisions of what's best for him, even if it
means one of his appliances is "tivoized". That's really *his* decision,
isn't it?
If the FSF insists on defining freedom for us (and very narrowly, at that),
then perhaps we'd be better off without them. After all, isn't true freedom
the right to choose whatever freedoms you want to practise?
Yes, I understand and appreciate the problems with proprietary software, but
that's not the _only_ issue that needs dealt with in this world. It's getting
to the point where the FSF has become just as bad as Microsoft, yet in a
different way.
I don't think the FSF is at all concerned whether GPLv3 complies with
the OSD. They couldn't care less.
<sarcasm>
Are you serious? WOW! =O
</sarcasm>
It was OSI that tried to create a
definition that matched exactly the meaning of the Free Software
definition under "more objective criteria". We already know they
failed, since the Reciprocal Public License is accepted as an OSS
license, but it's a non-Free Software license. There may be other
examples.
How could an open source license not being a free software license be
considered a failure? Pardon me for saying so, but I don't think the OSS
developers really give a crap whether their software is considered to
be "free" as long as their goals are met.
That said, since a number of people already understand the GPLv2
prohibits tivoization, your argument means that either the comment in
the OSD is wrong, and GPLv2 already fails to match the OSD, or that
GPLv3 complies with it in just the same way.
*what*?? That's the first I've heard of this. Nonsense. If that were true, we
wouldn't be having this debate, am I correct?
--
It's common knowledge that most intruders come in through Windows.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
