Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade

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)

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).

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Relevant Pages