| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Open Source in PoliticsOpen Source in PoliticsPosted Jan 12, 2004 21:37 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104)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.
(Log in to post comments)
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 12, 2004 22:19 UTC (Mon) by yohahn (subscriber, #4107) [Link] I must congratulate you on your comment. For one not working in their native language, it is quite insightful.Indeed, our hope should be that free software is/becomes commercial software. We should focus on doing a better job of equating these two words in our messages.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 14, 2004 8:22 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] My boilerplate spiel when talking to journalists includes: Anyone is permitted to offer distribution, customisation, or support of Free Software for a fee. This creates a free market where capitalism can work as intended, unhindered by monopolies or artificial restrictions. Pointing out the commercial possibilities while pre-empting the MS/SCO claims that Free Software is a "Free Lunch", "communist", or "hippie-ish".
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 13, 2004 6:47 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] I did note the bit about Jim Moore working with commercial vendors todeploy open-source software. It sounds to me like he understands that "commercial" talks about how you get stuff and "open-source" talks about the stuff you get, even if he doesn't avoid calling software "commercial". The Dean campaign (as an organization) is quite technically savvy, and it isn't too surprising that they'd be choosing software based on technical merits. It's also nice to hear that they found open-source software to be technically better.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 15, 2004 14:41 UTC (Thu) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] The article seems to imply that commercial software is an alternative to open source. Unfortunately, it is the politicians (or at least their staffers) who imply this. (I suspect and dearly hope the author understands the non-orthogonality of these concepts.) This basic misunderstanding of our community's interests indicates that these candidates aren't going to help us, not without a lot of education and a change of heart. Not that this is especially surprising, but I guess some of us got our hearts up.
Open Source vs Noncommercial Posted Jan 16, 2004 18:07 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] It's a very astute observation that open source doesn't mean non-commercial.But the reason people confuse them is that in practice, open source and non-commercial are highly correlated. Commercial means involving trade. Most users of open source software, especially the visible ones, do not compensate the producer for it. Most developers of open source software do not do it for compensation. Conversely, there is very little closed-source non-commercial software in the world. What we have is one of these unfortunate terminology shifts, like when "IDE" comes to mean ATA.
Open Source vs Noncommercial Posted Jan 22, 2004 17:42 UTC (Thu) by syntaxis (subscriber, #18897) [Link] "there is very little closed-source non-commercial software in the world."Nonsense. What most people think of as "Freeware" is software provided free of charge with no strings attached, but without the source code. Such software is both closed-source and non-commercial.
|
|
||||||||||||