Re: [DotGNU]Re: "Open source" is not what we do here

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Personally, I think that it comes down to the propogation of the ideology.
If Free Software ideology (the ethical aspect of Free Software production)
is not propogated with the software's popularity, the whole thing will be
for nothing.

If that occurs, then we'll see more licenses that allow proprietary
entities to embrace the works of the community, and that will over time
launch us back into a proprietary industry.  This is assuming a complete
win for Free Software down the road.  This is about enlightenment - and
enlightenment can never happen if people aren't enlightened.

I can't control how others say something - and I wouldn't personally force
them to say something a certain way.  Their enlightenment is ultimately up
to them.  However, DotGNU is a Free Software project.  It would be a Free
Software project even if it wasn't a GNU project.  We are a GNU project
because we hold Free Software ideology to be important and necessary.  And
being a GNU project allows us to be part of a vibrant ecosystem (software
ecosystem) that favors Freedom above all else.  That is what we can say
about DotGNU.  I will not pick at the sides that people choose - Free
Software and Open Source communities and people - both are fine in my
book.  However, DotGNU is a Free Software project.  That can be said.

        -Barry



On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Seth Johnson wrote:

>
> This is not about parentage or who wounded whom.  It's about
> disciplined organizing.  "Open source" is a term that has
> the ability to disrupt the game plan.  At worst, it can be
> used by disingenuous "political cops" who may actively seek
> to disrupt the coherence of the movement's focus -- but *of
> course* not necessarily.
>
> Richard understands what's necessary, and has stayed the
> course for perhaps twenty-odd years.  Under his leadership
> he has evaded all tendencies that might tend to coopt the
> movement.  "Open sourcers" by whatever rationale may be
> well-intentioned, but we have to overdetermine on the fact
> that because of the nature of what we have to work against,
> that term is unreliable.  The term "free software" is a key
> protocol that keeps things on the right keel.
>
> Who cares who gets to name the movement in the end?  If we
> win, we win.  That's what it's about.  That's ALL it's
> about.  So whatever you do your own initiative, remember
> that the FSF defines its initiatives in certain ways, for
> enormously important reasons.
>
> Seth Johnson
>
> Tony Stanco wrote:
> >
> > I don't use the term to direct people's attention to Open Source. Their
> > attention is already there. I use that pre-existing attention to get my
> > message across about using GPL software.
> >
> > In my opinion, changing the development paradigm needs to be the main goal,
> > anyway. Unless the paradigm is changed, both names are irrelevant. Once the
> > GPL is the paradigm, we can worry about the name. But once the GPL is the
> > paradigm, the naming will naturally fall to you. That's because you are the
> > author of the GPL, and Eben and the FSF are the enforcers. No one will have
> > more legitimacy or authority.
>
> --
>
> [CC] Counter-copyright:
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>

address@hidden
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org