[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Gopal.V
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Re: "Open source" is not what we do here
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 00:34:43 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

If memory serves me right, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 1.-  I agree that writing free software is an inherent good.  This
> motivates me to write free software.
> 2.-  I do not agree that (1) implies that propietary software is an
> inherent evil.
> 3.-  I am *also* motivated by the practical advantages of free software
> (that's my "open source side").

But Open Source == (Free Software - <a_lot_of_ideals>),

But some open source programs might be useless for a community,
for example restricting modification or distributing patches.

So IMHO (1) and (3) come under Free Software part of me -- these things
motivate other people like me. But when it comes to (2) , I beg to differ.

The evil is not in the software or product , but in the actions it producers
take to restrict your freedom. For example Microsoft added a restriction
to prevent GPL'd programs from being written for implementing a closed
protocol. It is not the programs that are evil , but the intentions behind
it that are to be considered. IMHO in most cases the intentions are 
profiteering or control -- which are evil.

I have heard people say that "Microsoft .NET is Free as far as I am
concerned" . What they don't realize is the price they are paying ,
because that is a price "Free America" is not familiar with.

> Furthermore, I do believe that monopolistic control is an inherent evil.

"control" is the keyword here. It is a restriction to your freedom. 
It all comes to the Freedom you get.

>  i. I am mostly driven by my notion of ethics and good.

Open Source is not driven by any ethics , but by practical
advantages. So you definitely do not belong in OSS. People
who talk ideology get flamed (I have made that mistake lots of 

> ii. Much of that good comes from the advantages of a "software model".
>     Emphasizing the model is more of an open source trait.

Putting the "Software" above everything else *is* an OSS trait. 

But would you go as far as to say that the GNU project did not have a 
"Software model" ?

> As you can see, my believes do not fit perfectly into either group.

Not intending to offend you , your statements are mostly conflicting 
in ideas. Any work for the good of the community should remain available
for ever, which is the corner stone of Free Software. Open source makes
no such promise. So by your own words (i), you should be a Free Software

This is just my interpretation of your comments, I may be wrong (but I
hope I'm not ;).

 The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]