However, Eric and the Open Source movement deliberately avoid the
issues that I focus on most: issues of principle. They do not say
that we deserve freedom to share and change software,
That would be incorrect, at least from my vantage point. A core principle
of the Open Source Definition is the right to fork - which is, the right
to share and change software beyond the control of the original party.
Whether this mandate should be viral upon derivatives is, of course, where
we differ.
I don't think that, whether `this mandate should be viral upon
derivatives' (as in the GPL) is where we (the free software and the
open source movements) differ. I believe Richard was refering more to
the methods used by the Open Source movement: to hide the freedom.
As far as I know, the FSF considers programs distributed under many
licenses other than the GPL free software. The FSF would rather use the
GPL but they still take software under many licenses with no `viral'
mandates as free software.
According to the open source FAQ, by Raymond, "Open Source is a marketing
program for free software". In the end, Open Source *is* free foftware.
However, in some people's minds, they are different terms. They think a
program can be open source yet still be propietary software. They fail
to remember that the point is *not* just opening the source code for
everyone to see it; they seem to forget the important thing is the
freedom of everyone to use the code in whatever ways they want (except,
as perhaps you'd like me to point out, to restrict others' freedom).
As the opensource.org web site says (or at least used to):
"The real reason for the re-labeling [of Free Software] is a marketing one.
We're trying to pitch our concept to the corporate world now. We have a
winning product, but our positioning, in the past, has been awful. The term
``free software'' has a load of fatal baggage; to a businessperson, it's too
redolent of fanaticism and flakiness and strident anti-commercialism. [...]
In marketing appearance is reality. The appearance that we're willing to climb
down off the barricades and work with the corporate world counts for as much
as the reality of our behavior, our convictions, and our software."
So the Open Source movement may have got a lot of attention and Raymond
has certainly done an important job. The problem is that it hides the
freedom, and that is not good. I believe this is why GNU is asking
mantainers and developers of free software to "use the term 'free
software' rather than 'open source'". Why would we want to hide the
term free? If someone is willing to accept the term open source but
not free software, if they have a problem with developing free software,
I wonder why should we care to draw their attention.
Alejo.
--
The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution.
-- Albert Einstein.
