On Friday 23 March 2007 16:08, Robert Smits wrote: hi Bob, thanks for your comments,
> 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. You are correct in that from a practical standpoint there is not much difference, at least as far as good open software goes. You are also correct that the difference is not worth fighting "over". However, you might consider that the difference (freedom) is still worth fighting "for". The practical aspects of open source have been touted (for good business reason) and have largely been successful; however, "freedom" is seldom mentioned... and that is not a mute point. The practical ends are very similar... good open software; However, the motivations (goals and values) of each are markedly different... and it is those very goals and values of free software that are under attack by M$--- exacerbated via capitulation by Novell. > What is worth fighting over is the right to use, to create, and to modify > non-proprietary software. You insist there is this vast difference between > "Open Source" and "Free Software" - I don't see such a vast difference. The difference is freedom. Not all open source software is free (as in freedom) nor are the goals and values of free software advocates necessarily promoted via open source software. I highly recommend this article by RMS explaining why open source is missing the point of Free Software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html (good, that saved me five pages of paraphrasing) > What I do see is that fighting about whether "Free" or Open Source" is the > correct model diverts people from dealing with the real enemy - those that > want us all in a proprietary, locked down world of copywrongs and patents > and DRM. That is not without some truth; which is why we must state again and again that the enemy is *not* open source proponents (as such) but proprietary software. Its like having a problem in the family... both partners (spouses) need to focus on the problem and not make the other spouse into the problem. > Well interoperability does affect many of the rest of us. We don't live in > a world where there aren't real costs to adopting free or open-source > software. Interoperability removes barriers to adoption of free or > open-source software. The more people who have and use free or open-source > software, the more allies we can enlist in overcoming the proprietary > world. I understand this as well; however, think beyond M$ to MP3 or Flash. We should *never* capitulate to the enemy over their formats... if the format is closed we don't use it--- period. If I can't read your format... I don't need your format. If more folks stood their ground on this point *everyone* would begin using *free* formats, and *free* software. To use RMS' analogy (tired as it is) think free access (as in freedom) instead of price (as in free beer). > 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. This is where we (respectfully) part company. *My* work must *never* depend upon closed formats or closed (proprietary) software... it never will again... period. (ever!) "Those who give up essential liberty to gain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"--- Ben Franklin. Freedom is worth more to me than that. But everyone must make this decision for themselves. Every task must have an open alternative... if it doesn't exist yet, then it is high time to invent it. > 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. This is an example of "interoperability" that is beneficial. The *format* is free (as in freedom) and free software (as in freedom) can be used to read the *free* format. Great! If this is what is meant by interoperability (as an example) then fine. The problem comes in when "interoperability" means that open source software "contains" proprietary (closed) code necessary for the interoperability. This is not acceptable, and this is the design goal of M$ as they "work" Novell under the table (IMO). > 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. M$ is not about freedom, or the free software movement, or open source for that matter. They have an agenda, and Novell is going to get used to help pull it off. I too tend to stay away from the ill reasoning of the slippery slope (if possible)--- but not in this case... because the M$ history has such a depth and scope that no one can deny that their intentions *this* time are also probably evil. If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you get the idea. > And your point is that being a crusader lends you credibility? Of course not... only that just because you're a crusader doesn't mean that you're "bad". Plenty of crusaders have no credibility. The FSF is not one of them, however. > 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? Well... no... and of course not. This is where the dialogue becomes key all around... and this is why *none* of you should shy away from the dialogue. The GPLv3 should be discussed... and all inputs should come into play... and a decision that is community based (solidarity) should prevail. But to say that the GPLv2 is fine just the way it is won't fly. The GPLv3 needs to be refined and that takes discussion... not hatred or name calling... let's call it BrainShare... and lets see what we can come up with---- but from my perspective freedom has the highest priority, and whether you agree with that statement or not perhaps we all might consider that freedom needs to be in the discussion for the GPLv3 dialogues to be successful. > 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. Its way more than that... free to select, free to examine, free to distribute (even for a fee), free to modify, free to document and redistribute (even for a fee), and free to use in further innovations *freely* without patent restriction, asking for permission, paying a fee for the *right*, or being sued for any reason. > If you mean that everyone should get computers at no cost, I disagree. Free Software does not--- has not---- and never will--- mean free of cost. Free Software means (freedom) not free as in price--- not like free beer. > "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. You may not be paying attention to *most* of the writing that is going on blogs, slashdot, the news, etc. Most linux users are absolutely talking about it... all around the world... just take a look at Dell right now... the M$---Novell thing is going to have a huge impact there... maybe for the worse. I mean... as the *only* linux to be *recommended* by M$---- Dell might just want to stick with openSUSE (not that I'm apposed to that) and the *rest* of the linux community *might* be a little peeved about it... do you see my point ? > 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. Just remember my friend... "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned..." > 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. You make a good point that Free and Open must work together against a common enemy... but you're still missing the main point---- we disagree about the motivating goals and values (up front), and we pretty much agree on the ultimate goal of displacing proprietary software (on the back end). The main practical difference is that Open Source is a development methodology (or model) and Free Software is a social movement. The difference is staggering. Having said that I concur that in all ways and dialogues it must be stated again and again that the proponents of Free or Open software are *not* adversaries... and as a proponent of Free Software I do not (and will not) see open source proponents as the enemy; however, I will strive fervently to exchange a meaningful dialogue with all interested parties to advance the idea (education) that freedom is most important, and to focus all eyes and attention on the enemy--- namely proprietary software. Thanks again for discussing this with me... I appreciate the opportunity and I respect your input. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
