Comments on: A free software conference or an open source conference?

By: Nate

Nate — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:04:52 +0000

In regards to the preceding post, my opinion is that the FSF is, in fact, primarily concerned with software freedom. The misunderstanding stems from how this freedom is practically derived: distribution (i.e., sharing). It is through the GPL, the mechanism which promotes share and share alike, that software users and developers can use and modify software in any way they like. Ironically, nothing in the GPL actually forces anyone to share their modifications of GPLed software, it is just that if they do, they must provide the source code, thereby ensuring the freedom to make further modifications. Finally, if you consider how easy it is to comply with the GPL (Eben Moglen would call it making ice in the winter time), it is clear that it is truly about freedom. If its authors were more concerned about sharing, they could have imposed other strictures which would have made sharing more likely (but these would have come at the expense of freedom).

By: Donald Duck

Donald Duck — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:51:29 +0000

I wouldn’t draw so strict a line between the two camps. There’s no reason why open source people couldn’t behave just like free software people in the described example case, they just don’t want to make a black-and-white ideology out of it. They respect people’s ability and freedom, as adults, to choose for themselves how and what kind of software they want to use instead of trying to tell everyone how they should behave.

It doesn’t benefit the free software movement to alienate more and more users and developers if free software promoters don’t paint a balanced picture of their closest allies in the OSS camp.

Besides, the basic ideas of the FSF, like the GPL, are not actuallu so much about freedom but about cooperation and sharing. I suppose, all the talk about freedom is supposed to convince Americans who are obsessed with the concept of freedom in all their talksm and culture. Everybody is supposed to be defending freedom in the USA, although they might be fighting for totally opposite causes…

But what’s wrong with the concept of cooperation? I hope the FSF and Stallman wouldn’t be so stuck in their abstract freedom-this freedom-that discourse but could emphasize the practical benefits of sharing and cooperation as that is what the GPL is really all about too.

By: sillyxone

sillyxone — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:15:17 +0000

“Open source” is the exact term Microsoft wants people to call FOSS, as it obfuscates the true and ultimate goal of FOSS that Microsoft fears the most: software freedom.

I always have the impression that Australia is basically in bed with Microsoft (government are on long-term contracts with MS, all of my relatives over there only use and praise MS products). I still had some hope when hearing about FOSS news over there occasionally, but this is just confirming my feelings.

Thanks for bringing up this issue, we should always emphasize freedom as our guiding star.