[opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
The article linked below is titled "Why I 'Absolutely Love' GPL Version 2" --- and the interview is why I absolutely love Linus Torvalds. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070320/tc_cmp/198002077 I have long been troubled by some aspects of the angst and anger around Novell when they first purchased Suse, and especially since the fateful "Novell/Microsoft" deal. It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To "interoperate" to all of our advantage. Personally, I want the influence of linux to grow, and that of Microsoft to diminish. I want to see linux become the predominate (or, most influential) desktop OS. I believe that in order to become an order of magnatude more influential than it is currently (especially on the desktop) that it will have to penetrate both the corp and home user worlds. This won't happen without some changes --- changes that are resisted by stallwarts "in the community". I understand the outrage of the FSF people concerning what they see as Novell essentially "giving into" greivous thuggary in the form of Microsoft's patent and other bullying. Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens (both titans and honorable people) are emphatic in their belief that proprietary software and software patents are .... just wrong headed and ... plain wrong. But while I "get" the Cathedral and the Bazarre and I accept that for many projects and in many ways, an OPEN model of development is just better and makes more sense ... while I "get that", I also accept and understand that proprietary software itself is not "evil". I have never been able to accept "true believers and beliefs" in anything. I think everything, --- and particularly things like commerce and trading and human organizations and belief systems and governments and legal systems and contracts and .... --- are necessarily colored in shades of grey. And I also -- though this is harder to swallow and even to say -- don't think that Microsoft itself is "evil". I think, often wrong. Often, bad for the industry. Often (and never really punished) illegal and immoral in it's conduct. But they are also dominant in the marketplace, and we need to do business with them. This is NOT a battle of Good VS Evil. This is NOT the living explication of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It just is not. Personally, as to Novell's deal with Microsoft, I think it was "a first". And therefore awkward and not ... ideal. And, likely, needed to happen in some guise at some time. Can Microsoft "be trusted"? Well ... no, not if you mean by "trust" that Microsoft will abandon it's plans to subvert linux and F/OSS in general. But on the other hand, does the agreement actually acomplish ANYTHING, other than communicate "safety" to corporate accounts? I don't think so. It is not a legal precedent that can effectively be used. The most that can be said is that it gave Ballmer a stage upon which to howl. So ... I am waiting to hear more voices like Linus Torvalds, who wants to keep away from the labels of "evil", the "true believing" mantras that seem to hold sway as the main voices from "the community" right now. I respect and admire the principles and passions of the community. I just also happen to believe, that "pure" F/OSS can co-exist with proprietary software and companies. And, actually, I believe that for linux to penetrate even deeper into the corp world (especially in the desktop) that alliances like the Novell/Microsoft alliance will be key. I think the real tragedy, should it occur, is for the GPL 3 to compel a split in linux ... or to effectively kill Suse linux. It think that would be horrid, and a mistake, and ... would do great great harm to F/OSS in the long run. I am hoping that cooler heads prevail. I am hoping that Novell figures out how to approach the FSF folks to begin a dialogue, and that the parties find a way to agree where they can and continue on, disagreeing where they must. I am hoping that there are strong voices from amongst the Suse community that will reach out and counsel and encourage sane and reasonable behaviour. I am hoping we can end the crusade, and begin the rennaisance. Just my opinions and hopes. Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 22:22, Peter Van Lone wrote: <snip>
It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To "interoperate" to all of our advantage.
Personally, I want the influence of linux to grow, and that of Microsoft to diminish. I want to see linux become the predominate (or, most influential) desktop OS. I believe that in order to become an order of magnatude more influential than it is currently (especially on the desktop) that it will have to penetrate both the corp and home user worlds. **This won't happen without some changes --- changes that are resisted by stallwarts "in the community".** **This** is already happening right before your eyes... and its because of
I understand the outrage of the FSF people concerning what they see as Novell essentially "giving into" greivous thuggary in the form of Microsoft's patent and other bullying. Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens (both titans and honorable people) are emphatic in their belief that **proprietary software and software patents** are .... just wrong headed and ... plain wrong. RMS is completely vindicated... M$ has become our worst nightmare and RMS
The statement is a contradiction in terms. Interoperability is only relevant during the transition... once the transition is complete M$ and their entire product line are irrelevant. At this point interoperability is only relevant at the enterprise level (which, by the way was the target of the M$-Novell deal). In my home and business M$ is completely irrelevant today. the stallwarts "in the community". predicted that final conclusion years ago. **Its** wrong not because RMS is pigheaded, but because its wrong.
But while I "get" the Cathedral and the Bazarre and I accept that for many projects and in many ways, an OPEN model of development is just better and makes more sense ... while I "get that", I also accept and understand that proprietary software itself is not "evil". Proprietary software is an outdated protectionist evil, the fruit of jealousy and greed. The very nature of open (free) (call it righteous, call it true) software is that it not only functions, it communicates and propagates the art... centered in a sharing & caring spirit with the community interests upheld first... and also carried forward with a certain spirit of humility--- begging for honest critique and challenging others to better it and carry it still further.
I have never been able to accept "true believers and beliefs" in anything. I think everything, --- and particularly things like commerce and trading and human organizations and belief systems and governments and legal systems and contracts and .... --- are necessarily colored in shades of grey. Shades of grey... <sigh> What fellowship has light with darkness? Walk in the darkness, or walk in the light. Grey choices are just degrees of 'less' light.
And I also -- though this is harder to swallow and even to say -- don't think that Microsoft itself is "evil". I think, often wrong. Often, bad for the industry. Often (and never really punished) illegal and immoral in it's conduct. <snip> You just defined corporate evil bubba. And M$ is evil---end of story.
Personally, as to Novell's deal with Microsoft, I think it was "a first". And therefore awkward and not ... ideal. And, likely, needed to happen in some guise at some time. Can Microsoft "be trusted"? Well ... no, not if you mean by "trust" that Microsoft will abandon it's plans to subvert linux and F/OSS in general. But on the other hand, does the agreement actually acomplish ANYTHING, other than communicate "safety" to corporate accounts? I don't think so. Dance with the devil... lose your soul.
It is not a legal precedent that can effectively be used. The most that can be said is that it gave Ballmer a stage upon which to howl. Ballmer is going to howl himself into an early grave if he isn't careful...
So ... I am waiting to hear more voices like Linus Torvalds, who wants to keep away from the labels of "evil", the "true believing" mantras that seem to hold sway as the main voices from "the community" right now. RMS has convictions... and I respect him for them. I share some of those same convictions.
I respect and admire the principles and passions of the community. I just also happen to believe, that "pure" F/OSS can co-exist with proprietary software and companies. And, actually, I believe that for linux to penetrate even deeper into the corp world (especially in the desktop) that alliances like the Novell/Microsoft alliance will be key. Nope. It is happening and the only key role M$ has played is to be so evil that the community was willing by virtue of their own time, money, energy, and personal resource to overcome. M$ pushed us all over the edge... so get off the tracks cause the freight train is coming....
I think the real tragedy, should it occur, is for the GPL 3 to compel a split in linux ... or to effectively kill Suse linux. It think that would be horrid, and a mistake, and ... would do great great harm to F/OSS in the long run. OpenSUSE may die... unfortunately... look at Slashdot tonight (read the comments from those who are responding to Perens at the BrainFart conference--- Novell is taking it in the shorts folks). Novell may have blown it here... and it may haunt them. Regardless--- the cat is out-of-the-bag and there is going to be no catching it either. Novell needs to smarten up... <sad>
I am hoping that cooler heads prevail. I am hoping that Novell figures out how to approach the FSF folks to begin a dialogue, and that the parties find a way to agree where they can and continue on, disagreeing where they must. Oh there's going to be a dialog all right... GPLv3.
I am hoping that there are strong voices from amongst the Suse community that will reach out and counsel and encourage sane and reasonable behaviour. I am hoping we can end the crusade, and begin the rennaisance. Revolutions are never safe or reasonable... that's why folks resist drastic shifts in paradigm at almost all costs--- while "evils are tolerable". When the evil of oppression grows to life suffocating proportions then reasonable folks are often inspired to stand up with one voice and sometimes right along the very edge of sanity--- to row against the current, to face the giants, to stand against tyranny at all levels.
In the days of old tyranny raised its head with human state and crown... today tyranny reigns from corporate board rooms... some of which are corporate parasites that voraciously feed upon the greed and lusts of the others... all of them eaten alive in the process. M$ represents the quintessential corporate parasite... an evil giant that must be brought down... hard... now. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
M Harris wrote:
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 22:22, Peter Van Lone wrote: <snip>
It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To "interoperate" to all of our advantage.
The statement is a contradiction in terms. Interoperability is only relevant during the transition... once the transition is complete M$ and their entire product line are irrelevant. At this point interoperability is only relevant at the enterprise level (which, by the way was the target of the M$-Novell deal). In my home and business M$ is completely irrelevant today.
Personally, I want the influence of linux to grow, and that of Microsoft to diminish. I want to see linux become the predominate (or, most influential) desktop OS. I believe that in order to become an order of magnatude more influential than it is currently (especially on the desktop) that it will have to penetrate both the corp and home user worlds. **This won't happen without some changes --- changes that are resisted by stallwarts "in the community".**
**This** is already happening right before your eyes... and its because of the stallwarts "in the community".
I understand the outrage of the FSF people concerning what they see as Novell essentially "giving into" greivous thuggary in the form of Microsoft's patent and other bullying. Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens (both titans and honorable people) are emphatic in their belief that **proprietary software and software patents** are .... just wrong headed and ... plain wrong.
RMS is completely vindicated... M$ has become our worst nightmare and RMS predicted that final conclusion years ago. **Its** wrong not because RMS is pigheaded, but because its wrong.
But while I "get" the Cathedral and the Bazarre and I accept that for many projects and in many ways, an OPEN model of development is just better and makes more sense ... while I "get that", I also accept and understand that proprietary software itself is not "evil".
Proprietary software is an outdated protectionist evil, the fruit of jealousy and greed. The very nature of open (free) (call it righteous, call it true) software is that it not only functions, it communicates and propagates the art... centered in a sharing & caring spirit with the community interests upheld first... and also carried forward with a certain spirit of humility--- begging for honest critique and challenging others to better it and carry it still further.
I have never been able to accept "true believers and beliefs" in anything. I think everything, --- and particularly things like commerce and trading and human organizations and belief systems and governments and legal systems and contracts and .... --- are necessarily colored in shades of grey.
Shades of grey... <sigh> What fellowship has light with darkness? Walk in the darkness, or walk in the light. Grey choices are just degrees of 'less' light.
And I also -- though this is harder to swallow and even to say -- don't think that Microsoft itself is "evil". I think, often wrong. Often, bad for the industry. Often (and never really punished) illegal and immoral in it's conduct.
<snip> You just defined corporate evil bubba. And M$ is evil---end of story.
Personally, as to Novell's deal with Microsoft, I think it was "a first". And therefore awkward and not ... ideal. And, likely, needed to happen in some guise at some time. Can Microsoft "be trusted"? Well ... no, not if you mean by "trust" that Microsoft will abandon it's plans to subvert linux and F/OSS in general. But on the other hand, does the agreement actually acomplish ANYTHING, other than communicate "safety" to corporate accounts? I don't think so.
Dance with the devil... lose your soul.
It is not a legal precedent that can effectively be used. The most that can be said is that it gave Ballmer a stage upon which to howl.
Ballmer is going to howl himself into an early grave if he isn't careful...
So ... I am waiting to hear more voices like Linus Torvalds, who wants to keep away from the labels of "evil", the "true believing" mantras that seem to hold sway as the main voices from "the community" right now.
RMS has convictions... and I respect him for them. I share some of those same convictions.
I respect and admire the principles and passions of the community. I just also happen to believe, that "pure" F/OSS can co-exist with proprietary software and companies. And, actually, I believe that for linux to penetrate even deeper into the corp world (especially in the desktop) that alliances like the Novell/Microsoft alliance will be key.
Nope. It is happening and the only key role M$ has played is to be so evil that the community was willing by virtue of their own time, money, energy, and personal resource to overcome. M$ pushed us all over the edge... so get off the tracks cause the freight train is coming....
I think the real tragedy, should it occur, is for the GPL 3 to compel a split in linux ... or to effectively kill Suse linux. It think that would be horrid, and a mistake, and ... would do great great harm to F/OSS in the long run.
OpenSUSE may die... unfortunately... look at Slashdot tonight (read the comments from those who are responding to Perens at the BrainFart conference--- Novell is taking it in the shorts folks). Novell may have blown it here... and it may haunt them. Regardless--- the cat is out-of-the-bag and there is going to be no catching it either. Novell needs to smarten up... <sad>
I am hoping that cooler heads prevail. I am hoping that Novell figures out how to approach the FSF folks to begin a dialogue, and that the parties find a way to agree where they can and continue on, disagreeing where they must.
Oh there's going to be a dialog all right... GPLv3.
I am hoping that there are strong voices from amongst the Suse community that will reach out and counsel and encourage sane and reasonable behaviour. I am hoping we can end the crusade, and begin the rennaisance.
Revolutions are never safe or reasonable... that's why folks resist drastic shifts in paradigm at almost all costs--- while "evils are tolerable". When the evil of oppression grows to life suffocating proportions then reasonable folks are often inspired to stand up with one voice and sometimes right along the very edge of sanity--- to row against the current, to face the giants, to stand against tyranny at all levels.
In the days of old tyranny raised its head with human state and crown... today tyranny reigns from corporate board rooms... some of which are corporate parasites that voraciously feed upon the greed and lusts of the others... all of them eaten alive in the process. M$ represents the quintessential corporate parasite... an evil giant that must be brought down... hard... now.
I have to agree with Linus on this one, here's his statement from the article mentioned above: "Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not "evil" or "immoral," it just doesn't matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it's not a crusade -- it's just a superior way of working together and generating code." /J -- "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." - Jan L.A. Van De Snepscheut -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 11:03 +0100, Jan Karjalainen wrote:
"Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not "evil" or "immoral," it just doesn't matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it's not a crusade -- it's just a superior way of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ working together and generating code." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is almost prophetical. I recall reading books by Alvin Toffler in the 70's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Toffler), "Future Shock" and "The third Wave", later "Previews and Premises" (only the works before 83 were r-evolutionary; the later works became a political slant). It remains a question of time till the 'lock-in' of customers by organisations are broken. It will be a matter of costs. OS's have to become part of the PC-System, just as a motor is part of the automobile. Some may have fun at playing around with modding (and maybe a bit 'religious' about it), but 90% will just drive from A to B (A-religious most of the time). They could not care what is under the hood. BTW, Pre-installed bundling is misunderstood as a sort of 'free-software', but for which the customer pays anyway without realising it. It's a clever marketing trick, but many are looking for reduction of costs; bundling may fall prey to it. But, what makes a difference are the social components OSS provide on a global basis. No company world wide can put such resources together as freely organised 'dedicated to the cause' groups of people, enjoying the fact that they have all the same passion; e.g. OSS. They are not doing it for a paycheck. They are passionate, as 'hobbyists' were about their hobbies in previous generations. Today they are mostly specialists, using their skills to create something that addresses the need to self-actualisation. Organisational & Industrial psychologists know that this sort of motivation is the ultimate point of personal development in the occupational environment. Most organisations try to achieve it, most do not succeed, because share-holder value is the driving force. So, these specialists with a drive to self-actualise invest all possible time beyond that what they need to earn a living into such projects. Previously, the churches, community work, political parties, hobbies, etc. got the attention; today those who do not participate in such activities because there was nothing in these standard activities the interested them, get involved in things like social software and OSS. Here is where Linus has a point. Open Source can do better, and will do better eventually. Because it is open, everyone can do a quality check, even improve it and get the recognition for it - world-wide! No closed source team of even dozens of people can do it, because there is no way of ensuring to have the best programmers have an opportunity to look into it. Even the best ones can also improve on hints and requirements from newbies; who have no access in closed source at all. The down side is time. Most enthusiasts also have multiple activities and jobs to be a normal human being that has to work to eat, sleep and have fun. When being able to earn a living and being able to do OSS work full time can be somehow brought together, it will cause a paradigm shift. This is what Toffler talked about. It is happening on the quiet, but has major impact on the future. Who as managed to marry earning a living and doing OSS full time? Share it with us, so we can develop a new way of doing things ..., or as Linus says: " .. a superior way of working together" :-) LandoSr. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 3/22/07, Jan Karjalainen
I have to agree with Linus on this one, here's his statement from the article mentioned above:
"Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not "evil" or "immoral," it just doesn't matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it's not a crusade -- it's just a superior way of working together and generating code."
yes ... I believe the model is better, and eventually most software will be open source. Probably not all software, but the dominate method will be OSS. To focus all this energy describing non-oss process as "evil" and defining ourselves in it's terms .... its just bad form and beside the point. Relax, be happy, let the OSS process do it's thing over time. It will win because it just works better and makes more sense. M. Harrish, I respect many of the things you say and your participation on the list -- you have directly helped me in the past and know much more about linux and software in general than do it -- but I believe that your approach to this issue is wrong and more harmful to OSS than otherwise. "religious ferver" is inappropriate, everywhere. It stops a thinking mind, and divides the world into un-reasonably simple components, and concieves fantastical imaginary battles between wholly irreconsilable players ... it's "untrue" at least as much as it is "true". JMO Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 22 March 2007 07:25, Peter Van Lone wrote:
M. Harrish, I respect many of the things you say and your participation on the list -- <snip> but I believe that your approach to this issue is wrong and more harmful to OSS than otherwise. I respect your opinion Peter.
... and sorry Pat, this thread is on-topic, ... it is essential to differentiate two important camps within the F/OSS community. There are those who champion open source software. There are also those who champion free (as in freedom) software... like myself, and like the FSF. The two are related, but the two are vastly different in terms of motivation and affiliation. The M$-Novell deal might be good in the short term for OSS, and maybe even for Novell... but the M$-Novell deal is detrimental to free (as in freedom) software. I could care less about interoperability--- doesn't affect me. The question is not whether a piece of software is open source or not... the question is also not whether some IT manager has to hassle with Linux being able to work seamlessly with the knot-headed M$ product line... the real question is whether software is free, and whether software users have freedom--- freedom of choice and freedom useage. M$ has strategically targeted freedom, and she is going to leverage Novell against that agenda. This is not just about embrace, extend, extinguish---- sad to say. This issue goes way beyond that this time around... the goal is to destroy freedom... this is something against which the FSF has devoted many hard long hours to fight.... and is still faithful to fight for. This is not religious zeal... its about choice and propriety--- freedom of expression, and freedom of extention, and freedom of innovation. Linus may not be on a crusade... but the FSF is. Novell isn't on a crusade either... they're just dressed out to make a buck like everyone else. The FSF is on a crusade--- and the crusaders are not fighting windmills. OSS will not be hurt in the slightest at this point. OSS has finally hit critical mass--- there is no stopping that now. However, freedom is still very much hanging in the balance. The GPLv3 is not perfect, but it is closing in on the real issues, and it *is* going to make a difference. Computer systems should be free tools... not owned/controlled by Ballmer & Gates. Unfortunately for Novell most of the Linux community have viewed the sleeping arrangements between Novell and M$ as detrimental to freedom and as harmful to the free software movement. Fortunately for the community it doesn't really matter... because we are never again going to be left without a free software choice. In the final analysis the dudes left standing at half past noon when the dust clears at the OK corral are going to be the dudes that supported freedom. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 22 March 2007 10:54, M Harris wrote:
... it is essential to differentiate two important camps within the F/OSS community. There are those who champion open source software. There are also those who champion free (as in freedom) software... like myself, and like the FSF. The two are related, but the two are vastly different in terms of motivation and affiliation.
And I think that the distinctions being made between "Free" and "Open Source" are not worth fighting over. When you read the definition of Open Source at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and then look at the FSF at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html for their definition of "Free" software it certainly doesn't look like there is very much, if any practical difference. What is worth fighting over is the right to use, to create, and to modify non-proprietary software. You insist there is this vast difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software" - I don't see such a vast difference. What I do see is that fighting about whether "Free" or Open Source" is the correct model diverts people from dealing with the real enemy - those that want us all in a proprietary, locked down world of copywrongs and patents and DRM.
The M$-Novell deal might be good in the short term for OSS, and maybe even for Novell... but the M$-Novell deal is detrimental to free (as in freedom) software. I could care less about interoperability--- doesn't affect me.
Well interoperability does affect many of the rest of us. We don't live in a world where there aren't real costs to adopting free or open-source software. Interoperability removes barriers to adoption of free or open-source software. The more people who have and use free or open-source software, the more allies we can enlist in overcoming the proprietary world.
The question is not whether a piece of software is open source or not... the question is also not whether some IT manager has to hassle with Linux being able to work seamlessly with the knot-headed M$ product line... the real question is whether software is free, and whether software users have freedom--- freedom of choice and freedom useage.
The question ought to be whether people can do the work they need to do with free or open-source software or not. If they cannot - either because the software hasn't been written in an free or open-source software version or the free or open-source software version doesn't do what the user needs then they are much less likely to adopt free or open-source software and instead will stick to the proprietary versions. That's why I'm glad to see, for example, the ability to read the new M$ Office file format for documents being supported in Open Office. Because I NEED the ability, at work, on my Linux computer, to read files sent by those still stuck in the M$ world. It's not because I want to generate them it's because I need to be able to read them. So interoperability is really useful even if all the software you use is non-proprietary.
M$ has strategically targeted freedom, and she is going to leverage Novell against that agenda. This is not just about embrace, extend, extinguish---- sad to say. This issue goes way beyond that this time around... the goal is to destroy freedom... this is something against which the FSF has devoted many hard long hours to fight.... and is still faithful to fight for. This is not religious zeal... its about choice and propriety--- freedom of expression, and freedom of extention, and freedom of innovation.
I'm not arguing against the view that M$ has that kind of long range agenda. I don't, however, see that the Novell - M$ agreement moves us down that road.
Linus may not be on a crusade... but the FSF is. Novell isn't on a crusade either... they're just dressed out to make a buck like everyone else.
And your point is that being a crusader lends you credibility?
The FSF is on a crusade--- and the crusaders are not fighting windmills. OSS will not be hurt in the slightest at this point. OSS has finally hit critical mass--- there is no stopping that now. However, freedom is still very much hanging in the balance. The GPLv3 is not perfect, but it is closing in on the real issues, and it *is* going to make a difference.
Unfortunately, what it may also do is further excaberate the divisions in the non-proprietary software community. If many of those, like Linus, can't agree to use GPLv3 in its present form, are we going to see more energy dissipated in arguing about which distro can use which software instead of enabling all distros to better combat M$ and Apple?
Computer systems should be free tools... not owned/controlled by Ballmer & Gates.
I suspect you mean that everyone should be able to freely choose whatever software they want to use on their computer, and in that I completely concur. If you mean that everyone should get computers at no cost, I disagree.
Unfortunately for Novell most of the Linux community have viewed the sleeping arrangements between Novell and M$ as detrimental to freedom and as harmful to the free software movement. Fortunately for the community it doesn't really matter... because we are never again going to be left without a free software choice. In the final analysis the dudes left standing at half past noon when the dust clears at the OK corral are going to be the dudes that supported freedom.
"Most of the Linux community" isn't discussing the Novell M$ deal. Most of it is just using their Free or Open Source software to do their computing in their daily lives. A relatively small, very vociferous contingent have viewed the agreement more like a woman scorned than as a rational observer sees by what Novell has actually agreed to. They are so offended that anyone would have ANY truck with M$ that Novell has become their target instead of Microsoft. And they seem to have read into the agreement all kinds of things others don't see there at all. We need to see that the "Free" and "Open" software advocates have far more in common than separating them, and that even though there are disagreements about the ultimate goal, cooperation on a whole range of issues is both possible and desirable. You don't get there by vilfying those who need to cooperate with each other. -- Bob Smits bob@rsmits.ca -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
And I think that the distinctions being made between "Free" and "Open Source" are not worth fighting over. When you read the definition of Open Source at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and then look at the FSF at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html for their definition of "Free" software it certainly doesn't look like there is very much, if any practical difference. You are correct in that from a practical standpoint there is not much difference, at least as far as good open software goes. You are also correct
What is worth fighting over is the right to use, to create, and to modify non-proprietary software. You insist there is this vast difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software" - I don't see such a vast difference. The difference is freedom. Not all open source software is free (as in freedom) nor are the goals and values of free software advocates necessarily
What I do see is that fighting about whether "Free" or Open Source" is the correct model diverts people from dealing with the real enemy - those that want us all in a proprietary, locked down world of copywrongs and patents and DRM. That is not without some truth; which is why we must state again and again
On Friday 23 March 2007 16:08, Robert Smits wrote: hi Bob, thanks for your comments, that the difference is not worth fighting "over". However, you might consider that the difference (freedom) is still worth fighting "for". The practical aspects of open source have been touted (for good business reason) and have largely been successful; however, "freedom" is seldom mentioned... and that is not a mute point. The practical ends are very similar... good open software; However, the motivations (goals and values) of each are markedly different... and it is those very goals and values of free software that are under attack by M$--- exacerbated via capitulation by Novell. promoted via open source software. I highly recommend this article by RMS explaining why open source is missing the point of Free Software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html (good, that saved me five pages of paraphrasing) that the enemy is *not* open source proponents (as such) but proprietary software. Its like having a problem in the family... both partners (spouses) need to focus on the problem and not make the other spouse into the problem.
Well interoperability does affect many of the rest of us. We don't live in a world where there aren't real costs to adopting free or open-source software. Interoperability removes barriers to adoption of free or open-source software. The more people who have and use free or open-source software, the more allies we can enlist in overcoming the proprietary world. I understand this as well; however, think beyond M$ to MP3 or Flash. We should *never* capitulate to the enemy over their formats... if the format is closed we don't use it--- period. If I can't read your format... I don't need your format. If more folks stood their ground on this point *everyone* would begin using *free* formats, and *free* software. To use RMS' analogy (tired as it is) think free access (as in freedom) instead of price (as in free beer).
The question ought to be whether people can do the work they need to do with free or open-source software or not. If they cannot - either because the software hasn't been written in an free or open-source software version or the free or open-source software version doesn't do what the user needs then they are much less likely to adopt free or open-source software and instead will stick to the proprietary versions. This is where we (respectfully) part company. *My* work must *never* depend upon closed formats or closed (proprietary) software... it never will again... period. (ever!) "Those who give up essential liberty to gain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"--- Ben Franklin. Freedom is worth more to me than that. But everyone must make this decision for themselves. Every task must have an open alternative... if it doesn't exist yet, then it is high time to invent it.
That's why I'm glad to see, for example, the ability to read the new M$ Office file format for documents being supported in Open Office. Because I NEED the ability, at work, on my Linux computer, to read files sent by those still stuck in the M$ world. It's not because I want to generate them it's because I need to be able to read them. So interoperability is really useful even if all the software you use is non-proprietary. This is an example of "interoperability" that is beneficial. The *format* is free (as in freedom) and free software (as in freedom) can be used to read the *free* format. Great! If this is what is meant by interoperability (as an example) then fine. The problem comes in when "interoperability" means that open source software "contains" proprietary (closed) code necessary for the interoperability. This is not acceptable, and this is the design goal of M$ as they "work" Novell under the table (IMO).
I'm not arguing against the view that M$ has that kind of long range agenda. I don't, however, see that the Novell - M$ agreement moves us down that road. M$ is not about freedom, or the free software movement, or open source for that matter. They have an agenda, and Novell is going to get used to help pull it off. I too tend to stay away from the ill reasoning of the slippery slope (if possible)--- but not in this case... because the M$ history has such a depth and scope that no one can deny that their intentions *this* time are also probably evil. If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you get the idea.
And your point is that being a crusader lends you credibility? Of course not... only that just because you're a crusader doesn't mean that you're "bad". Plenty of crusaders have no credibility. The FSF is not one of them, however.
Unfortunately, what it may also do is further excaberate the divisions in the non-proprietary software community. If many of those, like Linus, can't agree to use GPLv3 in its present form, are we going to see more energy dissipated in arguing about which distro can use which software instead of enabling all distros to better combat M$ and Apple? Well... no... and of course not. This is where the dialogue becomes key all around... and this is why *none* of you should shy away from the dialogue. The GPLv3 should be discussed... and all inputs should come into play... and a decision that is community based (solidarity) should prevail. But to say that the GPLv2 is fine just the way it is won't fly. The GPLv3 needs to be refined and that takes discussion... not hatred or name calling... let's call it BrainShare... and lets see what we can come up with---- but from my perspective freedom has the highest priority, and whether you agree with that statement or not perhaps we all might consider that freedom needs to be in the discussion for the GPLv3 dialogues to be successful.
I suspect you mean that everyone should be able to freely choose whatever software they want to use on their computer, and in that I completely concur. Its way more than that... free to select, free to examine, free to distribute (even for a fee), free to modify, free to document and redistribute (even for a fee), and free to use in further innovations *freely* without patent restriction, asking for permission, paying a fee for the *right*, or being sued for any reason.
If you mean that everyone should get computers at no cost, I disagree. Free Software does not--- has not---- and never will--- mean free of cost. Free Software means (freedom) not free as in price--- not like free beer.
"Most of the Linux community" isn't discussing the Novell M$ deal. Most of it is just using their Free or Open Source software to do their computing in their daily lives. You may not be paying attention to *most* of the writing that is going on blogs, slashdot, the news, etc. Most linux users are absolutely talking about it... all around the world... just take a look at Dell right now... the M$---Novell thing is going to have a huge impact there... maybe for the worse. I mean... as the *only* linux to be *recommended* by M$---- Dell might just want to stick with openSUSE (not that I'm apposed to that) and the *rest* of the linux community *might* be a little peeved about it... do you see my point ?
A relatively small, very vociferous contingent have viewed the agreement more like a woman scorned than as a rational observer sees by what Novell has actually agreed to. They are so offended that anyone would have ANY truck with M$ that Novell has become their target instead of Microsoft. And they seem to have read into the agreement all kinds of things others don't see there at all. Just remember my friend... "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned..."
We need to see that the "Free" and "Open" software advocates have far more in common than separating them, and that even though there are disagreements about the ultimate goal, cooperation on a whole range of issues is both possible and desirable. You don't get there by vilfying those who need to cooperate with each other. You make a good point that Free and Open must work together against a common enemy... but you're still missing the main point---- we disagree about the motivating goals and values (up front), and we pretty much agree on the ultimate goal of displacing proprietary software (on the back end). The main practical difference is that Open Source is a development methodology (or model) and Free Software is a social movement. The difference is staggering. Having said that I concur that in all ways and dialogues it must be stated again and again that the proponents of Free or Open software are *not* adversaries... and as a proponent of Free Software I do not (and will not) see open source proponents as the enemy; however, I will strive fervently to exchange a meaningful dialogue with all interested parties to advance the idea (education) that freedom is most important, and to focus all eyes and attention on the enemy--- namely proprietary software.
Thanks again for discussing this with me... I appreciate the opportunity and I respect your input. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
M Harris wrote:
I understand this as well; however, think beyond M$ to MP3 or Flash. We should *never* capitulate to the enemy over their formats... if the format is closed we don't use it--- period. If I can't read your format... I don't need your format. If more folks stood their ground on this point *everyone* would begin using *free* formats, and *free* software. To use RMS' analogy (tired as it is) think free access (as in freedom) instead of price (as in free beer).
I respect the sort of purity of principle you're going for, here, but it's a bit like declaring that you will only drive cars that run on hydrogen. It's noble, but you won't be taking many trips. What good is ideologically pure software that no one uses because it's impractical? Even people who don't use proprietary formats *anymore* inevitably have old documents in those formats. And they have to exchange documents with people who only know how to use closed-source formats. If an HR department demands my resume as a DOC file I'm probably not going to get a job by arguing with them. ;)
Every task must have an open alternative... if it doesn't exist yet, then it is high time to invent it.
And there's part of the rub. What open source packages get written depends entirely on what people find fun and interesting, because open source developers don't usually get paid to write open source software. This is why, for example, there are dozens of open-source music players but very few open-source accounting packages. There are dozens of different open-source window managers but no industrial-quality CAD programs. The open-source software world's ability to draw cool-looking screen savers knows no bounds, but the best open-source word processors are still playing catchup with MS Office. People aren't going to do the boring stuff for free. Why would they?
...the M$ history has such a depth and scope that no one can deny that their intentions *this* time are also probably evil.
When I hear language like this all I can think of is the run-up to the Iraq war. RMS and his ilk, like George Bush, believe the world divides neatly into two camps. People are either for OSS, or they're The Enemy. In the real world it's a lot more complicated. Extremism never solves problems, it only creates them. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2007-03-23 at 22:31 -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
I respect the sort of purity of principle you're going for, here, but it's a bit like declaring that you will only drive cars that run on hydrogen. It's noble, but you won't be taking many trips. What good is ideologically pure software that no one uses because it's impractical?
... etc To put it short: I agree with all what you said in this email.
but very few open-source accounting packages. There are dozens of different open-source window managers but no industrial-quality CAD programs.
And many more examples. My country oficial tax program runs only in windows. Take it or leave it... So I keep a windows partition. Have to. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGBQJNtTMYHG2NR9URAmj0AJwKx+wHauPQkXz4SJPQfUaAg9nB/gCdHox9 VxRexcy0IpQcgLmhhOLgfuw= =20Jf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
* Carlos E. R.
And many more examples. My country oficial tax program runs only in windows. Take it or leave it... So I keep a windows partition. Have to.
And, since you are required to maintain a windoz install, you are allowed a deduction of the purchase cost and your time-to-install, are you not? :^) -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-03-24 at 08:48 -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
And many more examples. My country oficial tax program runs only in windows. Take it or leave it... So I keep a windows partition. Have to.
And, since you are required to maintain a windoz install, you are allowed a deduction of the purchase cost and your time-to-install, are you not?
:^)
You gotta be kiddin. :-P Actually, I can pop into a tax office and they will do the papers and calculations for free. If you can trust them... - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGBxTntTMYHG2NR9URAnoLAJ9fHak/Qur95EL8AzCS/iBCsv4zwgCcD22o oQogEOp8zjjHdh2jAAqLo2Q= =L+lw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 23 March 2007 21:07, M Harris wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 16:08, Robert Smits wrote:
hi Bob, thanks for your comments,
And I think that the distinctions being made between "Free" and "Open Source" are not worth fighting over. When you read the definition of Open Source at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and then look at the FSF at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html for their definition of "Free" software it certainly doesn't look like there is very much, if any practical difference.
You are correct in that from a practical standpoint there is not much difference, at least as far as good open software goes. You are also correct that the difference is not worth fighting "over". However, you might consider that the difference (freedom) is still worth fighting "for". The practical aspects of open source have been touted (for good business reason) and have largely been successful; however, "freedom" is seldom mentioned... and that is not a mute point. The practical ends are very similar... good open software; However, the motivations (goals and values) of each are markedly different... and it is those very goals and values of free software that are under attack by M$--- exacerbated via capitulation by Novell.
What is worth fighting over is the right to use, to create, and to modify non-proprietary software. You insist there is this vast difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software" - I don't see such a vast difference.
The difference is freedom. Not all open source software is free (as in freedom) nor are the goals and values of free software advocates necessarily promoted via open source software. I highly recommend this article by RMS explaining why open source is missing the point of Free Software:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
(good, that saved me five pages of paraphrasing)
When I look at the article you point to, I see that RMS defines free software thus: "When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes." When I look at the definition of Open Source, it says the following: Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. This certainly appears to meet the first and fourth freedom of RMS's statements about running and redistribution. 2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicised means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. This appears to meet the requirement that we have the freedom to study it, since we get the source code. 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Here we appear to have the right to modify and make changes and re-distribute the software. I've left the rest of the definition here for the sake of completeness, but as far as I can see, none of the other provisions are in any way opposed to the four freedoms announced by RMS. What freedom is missing? 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. 7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution. 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. *10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
What I do see is that fighting about whether "Free" or Open Source" is the correct model diverts people from dealing with the real enemy - those that want us all in a proprietary, locked down world of copywrongs and patents and DRM.
That is not without some truth; which is why we must state again and again that the enemy is *not* open source proponents (as such) but proprietary software. Its like having a problem in the family... both partners (spouses) need to focus on the problem and not make the other spouse into the problem.
Well interoperability does affect many of the rest of us. We don't live in a world where there aren't real costs to adopting free or open-source software. Interoperability removes barriers to adoption of free or open-source software. The more people who have and use free or open-source software, the more allies we can enlist in overcoming the proprietary world.
I understand this as well; however, think beyond M$ to MP3 or Flash. We should *never* capitulate to the enemy over their formats... if the format is closed we don't use it--- period. If I can't read your format... I don't need your format. If more folks stood their ground on this point *everyone* would begin using *free* formats, and *free* software. To use RMS' analogy (tired as it is) think free access (as in freedom) instead of price (as in free beer).
As it happens, the first time I got documents in the new Office format, I and others squawked and they were then sent out as pdfs....at least a standard that doesn't require proprietary software to read. Still not as good as .odt, I'll grant. But it's not always possible to simply reject non-free formats and do without. I'm not willing, for example, to jeopardise my health by refusing to use my glucometer monitoring program for my diabetes because it only comes in a non-free (although free in terms of cost) Windows version.
The question ought to be whether people can do the work they need to do with free or open-source software or not. If they cannot - either because the software hasn't been written in an free or open-source software version or the free or open-source software version doesn't do what the user needs then they are much less likely to adopt free or open-source software and instead will stick to the proprietary versions.
This is where we (respectfully) part company. *My* work must *never* depend upon closed formats or closed (proprietary) software... it never will again... period. (ever!) "Those who give up essential liberty to gain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"--- Ben Franklin. Freedom is worth more to me than that. But everyone must make this decision for themselves. Every task must have an open alternative... if it doesn't exist yet, then it is high time to invent it.
I would certainly prefer an open or free version of all the software I use, but at this point in time it simply is not yet available. I agree we need to keep asking for those versions and to support them wherever we can to improve the situation. A lot of businesses depend on software for much of their business function. Much of that software is not available in anything but Windows versions, and it simply is not an option to give up using it until there is not only a replacement, but a replacement that meets all the business needs of those using it.
That's why I'm glad to see, for example, the ability to read the new M$ Office file format for documents being supported in Open Office. Because I NEED the ability, at work, on my Linux computer, to read files sent by those still stuck in the M$ world. It's not because I want to generate them it's because I need to be able to read them. So interoperability is really useful even if all the software you use is non-proprietary.
This is an example of "interoperability" that is beneficial. The *format* is free (as in freedom) and free software (as in freedom) can be used to read the *free* format. Great! If this is what is meant by interoperability (as an example) then fine. The problem comes in when "interoperability" means that open source software "contains" proprietary (closed) code necessary for the interoperability. This is not acceptable, and this is the design goal of M$ as they "work" Novell under the table (IMO).
I would certainly agree that it's something to guard against, but speculating about possibilities is different from claiming that it has already happened. I'm not claiming you've said it but there are certainly lots claiming not that the sky might fall, but that it already has.
I'm not arguing against the view that M$ has that kind of long range agenda. I don't, however, see that the Novell - M$ agreement moves us down that road.
M$ is not about freedom, or the free software movement, or open source for that matter. They have an agenda, and Novell is going to get used to help pull it off. I too tend to stay away from the ill reasoning of the slippery slope (if possible)--- but not in this case... because the M$ history has such a depth and scope that no one can deny that their intentions *this* time are also probably evil. If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you get the idea.
I agree about Micro$oft completely. It does not follow that Novell intends to help them do it, and there are all kinds of good reasons why it's not in Novell's interest to allow them to.
And your point is that being a crusader lends you credibility?
Of course not... only that just because you're a crusader doesn't mean that you're "bad". Plenty of crusaders have no credibility. The FSF is not one of them, however.
No, it doesn't, but neither does it make the FSF expressed views on other matters above examination or "sainted". I quite agree with the FSF on many if not most issues, including copyright, patents, drm, etc. I still, however, have not been convinced by their crusade against Novell.
Unfortunately, what it may also do is further excaberate the divisions in the non-proprietary software community. If many of those, like Linus, can't agree to use GPLv3 in its present form, are we going to see more energy dissipated in arguing about which distro can use which software instead of enabling all distros to better combat M$ and Apple?
Well... no... and of course not. This is where the dialogue becomes key all around... and this is why *none* of you should shy away from the dialogue. The GPLv3 should be discussed... and all inputs should come into play... and a decision that is community based (solidarity) should prevail.
I'd be much more interested in doing just that if the stated goal wasn't to put a spoke in Novells wheel. If it really was just to update the GPLv2 to enable it to deal with changes in the law, including internationally, there would be much less resistance to to proposed changes. Instead, as I understand it, there are proposals to deal with hardware and DRM that not everyone agrees with. Can't we be opposed to DRM without necessarily putting it in v3?
But to say that the GPLv2 is fine just the way it is won't fly. The GPLv3 needs to be refined and that takes discussion... not hatred or name calling... let's call it BrainShare... and lets see what we can come up with---- but from my perspective freedom has the highest priority, and whether you agree with that statement or not perhaps we all might consider that freedom needs to be in the discussion for the GPLv3 dialogues to be successful.
What I see critics of v3 saying is that they want to distinguish the desire to keep the GPL current from the desire to move forward the particular agenda of the FSF.
I suspect you mean that everyone should be able to freely choose whatever software they want to use on their computer, and in that I completely concur.
Its way more than that... free to select, free to examine, free to distribute (even for a fee), free to modify, free to document and redistribute (even for a fee), and free to use in further innovations *freely* without patent restriction, asking for permission, paying a fee for the *right*, or being sued for any reason.
Yes, I mean all of that, and agree with it.
If you mean that everyone should get computers at no cost, I disagree.
Free Software does not--- has not---- and never will--- mean free of cost. Free Software means (freedom) not free as in price--- not like free beer.
No, of course that's not what you meant, but it's a complication of using the term "Free Software".
"Most of the Linux community" isn't discussing the Novell M$ deal. Most of it is just using their Free or Open Source software to do their computing in their daily lives.
You may not be paying attention to *most* of the writing that is going on blogs, slashdot, the news, etc. Most linux users are absolutely talking about it... all around the world... just take a look at Dell right now... the M$---Novell thing is going to have a huge impact there... maybe for the worse.
My point is that most Linux users aren't necessarily paying attention to blogs, or even know what Slashdot is. The Linux community has grown way beyond the realm of Linux aficionados like us who eat and breathe this stuff. Having Dell offer an off the shelf computer with Linux preinstalled would certainly make adoption of Linux by more people likely. I'm not at all sure it's going to happen, though. Unless Dell settles on a distribution that provides the level of support that Dell does now for its Windows computers (for the cynics among you please refrain from responding crappy, slow and untalented) it will run a huge reputational risk in selling Linux computers to the mass market. They simply must have SOME level of support to get people up and running when they have problems.
I mean... as the *only* linux to be *recommended* by M$---- Dell might just want to stick with openSUSE (not that I'm apposed to that) and the *rest* of the linux community *might* be a little peeved about it... do you see my point ?
Absolutely. Sometimes the linux community is its own worst enemy. Instead of rejoicing that someone provides a distro we can send newbies too where they can get everything working without too much effort, we grouse that real linux users had to use the command line, and so these distros aren't worthy of the name Linux.
A relatively small, very vociferous contingent have viewed the agreement more like a woman scorned than as a rational observer sees by what Novell has actually agreed to. They are so offended that anyone would have ANY truck with M$ that Novell has become their target instead of Microsoft. And they seem to have read into the agreement all kinds of things others don't see there at all.
Just remember my friend... "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned..."
That's my point. It's often emotional and not rational disagreement.
We need to see that the "Free" and "Open" software advocates have far more in common than separating them, and that even though there are disagreements about the ultimate goal, cooperation on a whole range of issues is both possible and desirable. You don't get there by vilfying those who need to cooperate with each other.
You make a good point that Free and Open must work together against a common enemy... but you're still missing the main point---- we disagree about the motivating goals and values (up front), and we pretty much agree on the ultimate goal of displacing proprietary software (on the back end). The main practical difference is that Open Source is a development methodology (or model) and Free Software is a social movement. The difference is staggering.
I wonder if everyone regards it this way. I see both Open Source and Free Software proponents at slightly different places on a continuum that goes from Free Software on one side to completely closed proprietary software on the other. I'm not even sure I wouldn't describe Open Source as much of a movement as Free Software. Perhaps it's because so many of us support both.
Having said that I concur that in all ways and dialogues it must be stated again and again that the proponents of Free or Open software are *not* adversaries... and as a proponent of Free Software I do not (and will not) see open source proponents as the enemy; however, I will strive fervently to exchange a meaningful dialogue with all interested parties to advance the idea (education) that freedom is most important, and to focus all eyes and attention on the enemy--- namely proprietary software.
Freedom to do WHAT, exactly? You seem to be saying that all free software is open source but not all open source is free software. When I look at the definitions of what constitutes free software and what constitutes open source software I don't see any glaring differences. (It looks like a duck, it sounds like a duck....etc). I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I still don't see what freedom is missing under open source that is present under free software.
Thanks again for discussing this with me... I appreciate the opportunity and I respect your input.
Thank you. I'm really trying to see the distinction, and I appreciate civilised discourse about it. -- Bob Smits bob@rsmits.ca "...I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an interpreter." (From N. Petreley's column, "Down to the Wire", sept. '96 issue of Inforworld) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
* M Harris
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 22:22, Peter Van Lone wrote: <snip>
It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To "interoperate" to all of our advantage.
Didn't you write the following:
"From: M Harris
On Thursday 22 March 2007 12:37, M Harris wrote:
<snip>
It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing, to co-exist peacefully. To "interoperate" to all of our advantage.
The statement is a contradiction in terms. Interoperability is only relevant
<snip> An excellent example of a fanatic at work. "I give now quarter because I am Right. No other point of view has any validity, is is JUST PLAIN WRONG." I could do that too, but I prefer to discuss the matter. Sometimes, I am wrong. Oftentimes, there is merit in my opponents point of view. He might be wrong, but I can't tell that before listening and understanding what he has to say. Then, perhaps we can discuss it further and maybe come to an agreement: if not, then we can part on good terms, each understanding the other. Fanatical ranting with never persuade anyone with the ability to think, to question. -- Cheers John Summerfield -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
I could do that too, but I prefer to discuss the matter. Then discuss it... what is your view?... or did you just want to belly up to
On Thursday 22 March 2007 22:33, John Summerfield wrote: the name calling bar...?
Fanatical ranting with never persuade anyone yeah, right... tell that to the guy who said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"---Patrick Henry (or), "He who gives up essential liberty to gain a temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."---Ben Franklin
... "when they resort to name calling you've won the argument" ... Did you have an opinion on the thread topic? I should add to the previous discussion a disclaimer which may appease the flame-throwers (possibly) and that is the point that RMS makes from time to time--- that although the goals and values of open source vs free software are quite different... by and large the end results seem to be compatible to a certain degree... at least they both lead to the production of good software. The point being that as a free software champion I do not look at open source proponents as the enemy... the enemy is proprietary software. But when open source proponents capitulate to the enemy, then at least a rant is warranted. (creates discussion and makes people think) -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 22 March 2007 11:33:17 pm John Summerfield wrote:
An excellent example of a fanatic at work. "I give now quarter because I am Right. No other point of view has any validity, is is JUST PLAIN WRONG."
I could do that too, but I prefer to discuss the matter. Sometimes, I am wrong. Oftentimes, there is merit in my opponents point of view. He might be wrong, but I can't tell that before listening and understanding what he has to say. Then, perhaps we can discuss it further and maybe come to an agreement: if not, then we can part on good terms, each understanding the other.
Fanatical ranting with never persuade anyone with the ability to think, to question.
'Not the point. One must be able to think logically - something that is becoming more rare daily. Fred -- Remember, a consumer is a customer with no choice. DRM 'manages access' in the same way that jail 'manages freedom.' -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
John Summerfield wrote:
On Thursday 22 March 2007 12:37, M Harris wrote:
Fanatical ranting with never persuade anyone with the ability to think, to question.
I dislike attacks based purely on the way in which an argument is presented more than fanatical rantings. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (11)
-
Carlos E. R. -
David Brodbeck -
Fred A. Miller -
Jan Karjalainen -
John Summerfield -
LandoSr＠Paradigmen.com -
M Harris -
Patrick Shanahan -
Peter Van Lone -
Robert Smits -
Russell Jones