Open Source in Politics
Posted Jan 12, 2004 21:37 UTC (Mon) by proski
Parent article: Open Source in Politics
The article seems to imply that commercial software is an alternative to open source. One can pay for software and support software companies yet use open source. Jim Moore doesn't seem to be against open source, at least that's how I understand his words.
Richard Stallman proposed calling non-free software "proprietary". English is not my native language so I cannot comment if it's the best word. But "commecial" isn't such word. Free and open source software can be commercial. It has been said many times by people who base their business on free software.
Quoting somebody talking in favor of commercial software and making him an enemy of free software is wrong. It alienates people. It may backfire some day. Remember that the people who run the electoral campaigns have limited time and resources. It's reasonable that they use the software that suites them. It's reasonable that they ask professionals to write their software. It's reasonable to charge for that work. You cannot just get a piece of software from SourceForge and base the campaign on it, risking to lose in 2004 and wait until 2008.
to post comments)