On Thursday 22 March 2007 10:54, M Harris wrote: > ... it is essential to differentiate two important camps within the > F/OSS > community. There are those who champion open source software. There are > also those who champion free (as in freedom) software... like myself, and > like the FSF. The two are related, but the two are vastly different in > terms of motivation and affiliation.
And I think that the distinctions being made between "Free" and "Open Source" are not worth fighting over. When you read the definition of Open Source at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and then look at the FSF at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html for their definition of "Free" software it certainly doesn't look like there is very much, if any practical difference. What is worth fighting over is the right to use, to create, and to modify non-proprietary software. You insist there is this vast difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software" - I don't see such a vast difference. What I do see is that fighting about whether "Free" or Open Source" is the correct model diverts people from dealing with the real enemy - those that want us all in a proprietary, locked down world of copywrongs and patents and DRM. > The M$-Novell deal might be good in the short term for OSS, and maybe > even > for Novell... but the M$-Novell deal is detrimental to free (as in freedom) > software. I could care less about interoperability--- doesn't affect me. Well interoperability does affect many of the rest of us. We don't live in a world where there aren't real costs to adopting free or open-source software. Interoperability removes barriers to adoption of free or open-source software. The more people who have and use free or open-source software, the more allies we can enlist in overcoming the proprietary world. > The question is not whether a piece of software is open source or not... > the question is also not whether some IT manager has to hassle with Linux > being able to work seamlessly with the knot-headed M$ product line... the > real question is whether software is free, and whether software users have > freedom--- freedom of choice and freedom useage. The question ought to be whether people can do the work they need to do with free or open-source software or not. If they cannot - either because the software hasn't been written in an free or open-source software version or the free or open-source software version doesn't do what the user needs then they are much less likely to adopt free or open-source software and instead will stick to the proprietary versions. That's why I'm glad to see, for example, the ability to read the new M$ Office file format for documents being supported in Open Office. Because I NEED the ability, at work, on my Linux computer, to read files sent by those still stuck in the M$ world. It's not because I want to generate them it's because I need to be able to read them. So interoperability is really useful even if all the software you use is non-proprietary. > M$ has strategically targeted freedom, and she is going to leverage > Novell > against that agenda. This is not just about embrace, extend, extinguish---- > sad to say. This issue goes way beyond that this time around... the goal > is to destroy freedom... this is something against which the FSF has > devoted many hard long hours to fight.... and is still faithful to fight > for. This is not religious zeal... its about choice and propriety--- > freedom of expression, and freedom of extention, and freedom of innovation. I'm not arguing against the view that M$ has that kind of long range agenda. I don't, however, see that the Novell - M$ agreement moves us down that road. > Linus may not be on a crusade... but the FSF is. Novell isn't on a > crusade either... they're just dressed out to make a buck like everyone > else. And your point is that being a crusader lends you credibility? > The FSF is on a crusade--- and the crusaders are not fighting > windmills. OSS will not be hurt in the slightest at this point. OSS has > finally hit critical mass--- there is no stopping that now. However, > freedom is still very much hanging in the balance. The GPLv3 is not > perfect, but it is closing in on the real issues, and it *is* going to make > a difference. Unfortunately, what it may also do is further excaberate the divisions in the non-proprietary software community. If many of those, like Linus, can't agree to use GPLv3 in its present form, are we going to see more energy dissipated in arguing about which distro can use which software instead of enabling all distros to better combat M$ and Apple? > Computer systems should be free tools... not owned/controlled > by Ballmer & Gates. I suspect you mean that everyone should be able to freely choose whatever software they want to use on their computer, and in that I completely concur. If you mean that everyone should get computers at no cost, I disagree. > Unfortunately for Novell most of the Linux community have viewed the > sleeping arrangements between Novell and M$ as detrimental to freedom and > as harmful to the free software movement. Fortunately for the community it > doesn't really matter... because we are never again going to be left > without a free software choice. In the final analysis the dudes left > standing at half past noon when the dust clears at the OK corral are going > to be the dudes that supported freedom. "Most of the Linux community" isn't discussing the Novell M$ deal. Most of it is just using their Free or Open Source software to do their computing in their daily lives. A relatively small, very vociferous contingent have viewed the agreement more like a woman scorned than as a rational observer sees by what Novell has actually agreed to. They are so offended that anyone would have ANY truck with M$ that Novell has become their target instead of Microsoft. And they seem to have read into the agreement all kinds of things others don't see there at all. We need to see that the "Free" and "Open" software advocates have far more in common than separating them, and that even though there are disagreements about the ultimate goal, cooperation on a whole range of issues is both possible and desirable. You don't get there by vilfying those who need to cooperate with each other. -- Bob Smits [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
