[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 14:13:41 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

If memory serves me right, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> My question for you:
> Do you consider Nintendo evil for keeping their games closed?

Doesn't Nintendo run on proprietary hardware ?. (sorry, but I'm
a bit ignorant there). The point is Nintendo is "Free" to keep
their software closed . If that's acceptable to you when a free 
alternative exists, you're "Free" to use it . Free Software is all
about "Freedom" , anything that restricts the community's freedom
is (of course) dangerous. (Evil has another meaning).

The lesser evil in proprietary is that it weakens the community 
development culture -- which fuels the Free Software movement as
well as the OSS. I can perfectly understand why Free Software 
opposes something that will eat away at their developer foundations.

In an ideal world all software will be Free. I think this is utopian,
but setting the aims at the sky is a good thing. 

> Sharing software freely makes software that is of high quality, very
> flexible and available to everyone.
> Consequence:
> - It brings technology to people that normally wouldn't have it.
> - It evens out the playing field.  (e.g. poor countries can compete).

All the above come under Free Software -- the aims are providing 
freedom to use and freedom to modify & redistribute which result
in your aims.

> - It encourages the creation of technologies that help people.

That is the community part . The community decides rather than the
corporate about what to do. It is the evolution of a technology.

The number of GPL'd apps available are a testimony to this fact.

> > But would you go as far as to say that the GNU project did not have a
> > "Software model" ?
> I don't understand this question.

What I meant was that the GNU project has a software model aimed at 
providing a free alternative (yeah, we were the first "We Have a Way Out"
guys -- MS copied that). And IMHO it has been successful and has survived 
for 20 odd years and made a reputation for itself.

> I lack the ability to express them effectively in less than 10 pages.

LOL !.

> I am glad that you view my opinions as compatible with Free Software.

The border is represented by one single point --ie Why you're doing this.
If you're doing it for the good of others ie ethical reasons , you must
be a free software person. If you're doing this for improving the program 
ie practical reasons , you're an OSS guy. 

This is the difference I see.

 The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success

reply via email to

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