| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Look at it this way...Look at it this way...Posted Jul 1, 2005 20:21 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)Parent article: ESR: 'We Don't Need the GPL Anymore' (O'ReillyNet)
We don't need ESR any more :-)
(Log in to post comments)
Look at it this way... Posted Jul 1, 2005 20:44 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Of course, this may only open the classic bad-old-days of Eric/Bruce flamewards, which did nobody any good...
...but I will gotta say that if Eric is gonna draw a line in the sand and say that the GPL is no longer needed or even a problem, I can tell you very clearly which of the two (GPL or Eric) *I* think is way more valuable and needed by the free software community....
What I really don't get is why Eric is doing this. Does he really think that opening up a for-sure flamewar within the open source community is going to help its image with the non-open source community? 'Cause that's all that this is going to accomplish.
-Rob
Look at it this way... Posted Jul 1, 2005 21:20 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] It was just so obvious a line that I couldn't resist. I don't bear him any animus these days, although he may bear me some.Bruce
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 1, 2005 21:29 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Eric has always, from the first days of Opensource.org, acted to deprecate RMS and things that RMS does as "scary to business people". I never felt the RMS-bashing was appropriate, and I suspect that he over-estimates how scary RMS and the GPL are and under-estimates the deterrent effect on developers when commercial entities take their work private.And sometimes he does RMS-bashing for no reason I can understand. He did a paper a while back purporting to prove that many more people said "Open Source" than "Free Software". It seemed to me to be picking a fight with no productive purpose. Regarding the GPL, Theo and Company have a fine kernel but get much less involvement than Linux, even in embedded systems. The only reasons I see for this are developer personalities and the GPL. So, I am not willing to buy Eric's thesis yet. Bruce
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 1, 2005 22:09 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Have Eric and Theo become buddies recently? It seems they're both harping on the same anti-GPL nonsense lately. (Not to mention the mean-spirited, juvenile and highly insulting depiction of Mr. Stallman in the OpenBSD 3.7 CD notes, which pretty much made me decide against using OpenBSD for anything--people that publish things like that don't get my support as a user.)
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 2, 2005 16:33 UTC (Sat) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] I'm curious, where can I find these notes?
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 2, 2005 16:57 UTC (Sat) by avr (guest, #27673) [Link] I think allesfresser is referring to the artwork that comes with the 3.7 release song as found at:http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#37
I must say that I too noticed this depiction in much the same way. Especially since RMS appeared supportive of openbsd's 'rigorous stance' regarding drivers in
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 3, 2005 0:15 UTC (Sun) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] That is the picture I was referring to, but the text is missing from the online copy. In the CD notes, there is text overlaid on the picture which reads "When Puffathy returned, her friends had discovered that the Wizard of OS was just a big fraud. All talk - no action! But Puffathy already knew that ... "
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 1, 2005 22:33 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] And sometimes he does RMS-bashing for no reason I can understand. He did a paper a while back purporting to prove that many more people said "Open Source" than "Free Software". It seemed to me to be picking a fight with no productive purpose. That does seem pretty gratuitous -- although I would say that there is purpose in the difference. I seem to remember a few years ago you came out with a statement that was widely quoted that we need to talk more about freedom. The problem with the term Free Software is that, alas, in English it is ambiguous. Our commercialized society thinks of cost before freedom, and so thinks that Free Software means Freeware. And, indeed, I frequently see "Freeware and Shareware, like Linux and..." quoted in news stories, which is very unfortunate. Open Source is, in that sense, less ambiguous, because it is a term that doesn't have the same pre-defined associations with it of being misinterpreted The meaning behind the term Free Software is something we need to talk about more... and we need to talk about why freedom is practical, and it's not just all philosophy. (In my experience, I generally regret it when I've found myself tied to some proprietary system or another. The University I'm at has gotten bitten again and again by being tied to proprietary systems for various different things (course management, applications, etc.), but nobody seems to have made the connection that avoiding all proprietary systems altogether might be part of the answer. -Rob
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 2, 2005 16:57 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > Open Source ... doesn't have the ... associations with it> of being misinterpreted
Huh? "Open source" = source that is open. ...but the speaker expects the listener to know that the source (and binaries) is also unfettered, technically and legally?
"Free" has two meanings, but at least one of them is a correct meaning. "Open" is nothing but misinterpretable.
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 4, 2005 14:15 UTC (Mon) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] "Open source" is a slightly akward term. That means that the listener is more likely to think that there is a defintion to it, much as "Shareware" is an akward term that the listener is likely to think has a defintion.
"Free Software," on the other hand, sounds like like "free software" without the capitalization. It can be used in a sentence without referring to anything in particular. "The store was giving away free software." Very different from "Linux is Free Software," but before we can talk about what Free Software is we have to get accross the barrier that there *is* a difference between zero-cost software and Free Software.
If, on the other hand, you say, "This software is Open Source," or similar, it's a little more obvious that there's a jargon term embedded in there.
By the way, I do not post all this to denegrate Free Software, or to say that Open Source is a better term! We do, however, need to recognize the challenges that come with the terminology, and admit when the Free Software term has more challenges than the Open Source term.
If I have to choose a camp, I put myself in the "Free Software" camp. I want the freedom. I value it for philosophical reasons, yes, but also very crass practical reasons-- just not the ones that ESR proposes. I don't know if it really is such a more efficient model for producing software that we don't even need to talk about Freedom. I value the freedom, and as a *user* I've been bitten in the past by lock-in issues assciated with non-Free software. I like the term. I just wish the English language were less ambigous about the term, and that marketing blitzes in the USA hadn't all but convinced people (called "consumers" if you're into marketing) that zero-cost is the be-all and end-all meaning of "free" when you're talking about anything other than speech.
-Rob
"Freedom software" anyone? Posted Jul 5, 2005 20:16 UTC (Tue) by stfn (guest, #30357) [Link] "Free Software," on the other hand, sounds like "free software" without the capitalization.Since Free Software is defined in terms of freedoms granted to the user perhaps we should start calling it "freedom software". As jimi wrote above, "software does not need the GPL, we do" and "It's not the software that's free; it's you". One doesn't think of price these days when hearing "free people" (although the many eyes make shallow bugs argument suggests FOSS gets developer effort at no charge, i.e. "free developers"). I only wish "freedom software" didn't remind me so sharply of the laughably jingoistic term "freedom fries" coined by an anti-French, pro-war contingent in the U.S.A.
"Freedom software" anyone? Posted Jul 8, 2005 16:03 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I only wish "freedom software" didn't remind me so sharply of the laughably jingoistic term "freedom fries" coined by an anti-French, pro-war contingent in the U.S.A. For anyone who may have missed the subtleties of the "freedom fries" issue, it is my impression that it was a joke. Perhaps a mean-spirited one, but intended to make people laugh nonetheless, and was never used in a serious sentence. It was a satire on the anti-German renamings from WWII, which I think were actually serious. The most famous of these was the renaming of "sauerkraut" to "liberty cabbage." Present day U.S. culture is full of light-hearted satire about a supposed enmity between the U.S. and France. "Freedom," incidentally, is well-used buzzword in U.S. politics for adding likability to almost anything you say. In the 1980's, there were people in El Salvador doing much the same thing that the folks the U.S. is fighting in Iraq are doing today. To gain support for them, the U.S. president referred to them as "freedom fighters." In any case, I agree that when I hear "freedom software," my first reaction is that some kind of linguistic subterfuge is going on.
"Freedom software" anyone? Posted Jul 11, 2005 22:19 UTC (Mon) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] For anyone who may have missed the subtleties of the "freedom fries" issue, it is my impression that it was a joke. Perhaps a mean-spirited one, but intended to make people laugh nonetheless, and was never used in a serious sentence. Sadly, it was taken more seriously than that. Several restaurants actually renamed fries on their menu, as did the restaurants and snack bars at the House of Representatives. At that time, and now, my own impression was that the people taking these actions were pretty serious about making a statement of protest, rather than a joke. See the wikipedia article. Like other folks, I wish "free" meant only one thing, and like others I have thought about calling it Freedom Software, but I too have the same reservations. My current hopeless hope would be that we could end up calling it Libre Software.
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 2, 2005 20:23 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Right. And "Open Source" is not a confusing term. So please explain to the same one confused by "free software" why is Microsoft's "Shared Source" is not "Open Source".
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 3, 2005 8:37 UTC (Sun) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] > why is Microsoft's "Shared Source" is not "Open Source" <
Err you tried to D/L any M$ Corp code ..?.. need i say more ..
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 1, 2005 22:57 UTC (Fri) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736) [Link] And sometimes he does RMS-bashing for no reason I can understand. He did a paper a while back purporting to prove that many more people said "Open Source" than "Free Software". It seemed to me to be picking a fight with no productive purpose. Which was entirely silly, as he did it on the SourceForge site, where *every single page* has the phrase 'Open Source' at the bottom in the context of the "Open Source Technology Group."
Why Eric is doing this Posted Jul 3, 2005 10:27 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] You can read a numerical analysis of the errors. There were methodological problems in the results of sourceforge.net, savannah, news.com and whole-web; basically the whole essay was flawed. To his credit, esr included a cautionary note in his essay, but it has not been followed through with a correction.
|
|
||||||||||||