Phil:
Open source and free software are the same thing (essentially) with a different name. Would a rose by another name smell as sweet?
Yes, but one man says it is pink, while another says it is red, so there is disagreement.
I think it would be more effective if you didn't come across so extreme.
Sorry, I meant death on a corporate level, not a personal one.
Harsh, I know, but a community can't go two ways at once and still be one community.
Sure it can. And in fact the free software community often moves in several directions at the same time. So we have Linux and BSD and Hurd. We have Gtk+ and Qt and Tk. We have GNOME and KDE. We have INN and leafnode and sn. We have no end of news readers and mail clients.
None of the others are incompatible directions with the others, merely different paths to roughly the same objectives. That's why they can co-exist happily, if not always totally peacefully.
Is there place for non-free software in the free software community? Clearly not, by definition. They cannot co-exist.
They've already had one failed fork attempt with "open source"
That's a rebranding program not a fork attempt. A rose would still be a rose if I decided to call it a "wug" as well.
OSI include licences as meeting their definition that FSF doesn't. The generic term "Open Source" includes things (eg from Sun, MS et al) that neither would endorse. (This last is why I believe that OSI's rebranding has failed and made our task harder, not easier.)
Oh, and if you call it a wug, I shall insist the plural is wugfskz.
MJ Ray wrote:
Oh, and if you call it a wug, I shall insist the plural is wugfskz.
Are you the one responsible for the Unix directory names? ;p
On Wednesday 14 November 2001 3:29 am, MJ Ray wrote:
Phil:
Open source and free software are the same thing (essentially) with a different name. Would a rose by another name smell as sweet?
Yes, but one man says it is pink, while another says it is red, so there is disagreement.
About the name, not the fact.
I know what sort of software I like to use. I'm not bothered what people call it, they can name it "wuggywugwug software" for all I care.
I think it would be more effective if you didn't come across so extreme.
Sorry, I meant death on a corporate level, not a personal one.
Sure, but even that's too harsh, IMO.
(Now if you'd said you wanted to see Microsoft bankrupt... :-))
Harsh, I know, but a community can't go two ways at once and still be one community.
Sure it can. And in fact the free software community often moves in several directions at the same time. So we have Linux and BSD and Hurd. We have Gtk+ and Qt and Tk. We have GNOME and KDE. We have INN and leafnode and sn. We have no end of news readers and mail clients.
None of the others are incompatible directions with the others,
Sure they are, you can't run Linux and BSD on the same box at the same time (unless you're using something like VMware).
merely different paths to roughly the same objectives. That's why they can co-exist happily, if not always totally peacefully.
Is there place for non-free software in the free software community?
The cxommunity is made up of people not programs. Is there a place for people who use non-free software in the free software community?
Yes, IMO.
Clearly not, by definition. They cannot co-exist.
In point of fact there are many examples of free and non-free software both existing at the same time to do the same job.
They've already had one failed fork attempt with "open source"
That's a rebranding program not a fork attempt. A rose would still be a rose if I decided to call it a "wug" as well.
OSI include licences as meeting their definition that FSF doesn't. The generic term "Open Source" includes things (eg from Sun, MS et al) that neither would endorse. (This last is why I believe that OSI's rebranding has failed and made our task harder, not easier.)
Oh, and if you call it a wug, I shall insist the plural is wugfskz.
Splitter. :-)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 03:14:14PM +0000, phil hunt wrote:
On Wednesday 14 November 2001 3:29 am, MJ Ray wrote:
Phil:
Open source and free software are the same thing (essentially) with a different name. Would a rose by another name smell as sweet?
Yes, but one man says it is pink, while another says it is red, so there is disagreement.
About the name, not the fact.
Uhmm... I don't want to be pedantic (and maybe we are just saying the same thing), but, for the sake of clarity...
From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html:
# Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source # movement # # The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like # two political camps within the free software community. # # Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for # factionalism: organizations split because of disagreements on # details of strategy, and then hated each other. They agreed on # the basic principles, and disagreed only on practical # recommendations; but they considered each other enemies, and # fought tooth and nail. Or at least, such is the image people # have, whether or not it was accurate. # # The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open # Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We # disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the # practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on # many specific projects. We don't think of the Open Source # movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software. # # We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want # to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have # contributed to our community, but we created our community. We # want people to associate our achievements with our values and # our philosophy. We want to be heard, not hidden behind a # different view.
So, Open Soure and Free Software are two different flowers --- even if they may look similar (at least, sometimes). But, since they are different, their name does matter... :-)
Regards,
Alceste
P.S.: one of the persons who really considered Open Source and Free Software almost the same thing was Bruce Perens --- and, when this consideration proved itself to be wrong, he left the OSI, and started to speak about Free Software again...
----- Original Message ----- From: "phil hunt" philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk To: discussion@fsfeurope.org Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:14 PM Subject: Re: The FSF Europe recommends: avoid SourceForge
On Wednesday 14 November 2001 3:29 am, MJ Ray wrote: [snip]
I think it would be more effective if you didn't come across so extreme.
Sorry, I meant death on a corporate level, not a personal one.
Sure, but even that's too harsh, IMO.
(Now if you'd said you wanted to see Microsoft bankrupt... :-))
so it's one rule for the monopolist, and another for everyone else? how can the community be seen to be operating on a professional level when this persistent attitude exists of "kill bill gates" and "destroy microsoft" (or similar derogatory terms) ...
Instead of constantly slurring the guy and his corporation, why not create better, faster, stronger tools (sorry to plagiarise Six Million Dollar Man there) and software, and intelligently promote them, instead of all this Microsoft-bashing ... most people I know who work in the lower echelons of Microsoft society are good people - they're not _all_ as bad as is made out at times.
I just noticed MJ's response to you ... it's the bloody Judean People's Front!!
-- _ __ ___ _ _ _ __ ___ @well.com William Anderson www.well.com/~neuro | '_ \ / _ \ | | | '__/ _ \ "The thing I love most about deadlines is the | | | | __/ |_| | | | (_) | wonderful WHOOSHing sound they make as they |_| |_|___|__,_|_| ___/ go past." - Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)