[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"

From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source"
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:40:06 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv: Gecko/20110414 SUSE/3.1.10 Thunderbird/3.1.10

Am 16.06.2011 11:57, schrieb address@hidden:
On 06/16/2011 08:36 AM, Jambunathan K wrote:
> When the first modern declaration of human rights showed up in french
> revolution of 1789 it was closely followed by guillotines.

Ironically, when RMS comes in France to explain Free Software to French,
he says most of the time: "I can explain free software in three words.
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. Everything Sarkozy hates."

I agree with him :) Meaning, never forget who you are to succeed.
Guillotines no longer exist in France, but French kept their values with
La Marseillaise.


Thanks pointing at that. Unfortunatly very recent politics demonstrates it's neither a joke nor some antiquity.

> So I have some favor for the wording "Open Source" not with respect to
> a precise license politics or specific institute, but because it's not
> that pathetic, doesn't that have that smell.
While we are discussing about making the words culturally netural -
Andreas here is talking here from a French perspective -

Andreas forgot to say that most hackers in France are talking about
Logiciel Libre (meaning Free Software), only businessmen are using the
wording of "open source" there, in the aim to sell some logiciel
privatif with Free/Libre software, plus some windows users who do not
know the meaning. The fact is that THIS thread is US-centric, and I
support RMS on his feedback.

So do I. Even when contradicting :-) Finally the truth is a process.

What about a hypothetical, in my eyes more measured response:

"Please note: Emacs focus in not to be just open source, but rather free/libre software. We have developed it for freedom's sake, and we want people to know this."

As for the following passage it makes me headache in various respects.
"Open source" doesn't contrast with GPL practical aspects at all IMHO. The GPL is of great practicability, also from a pure technical aspect. (Which again doesn't exclude questioning some stipulations...)
People may well choose GPL for very practical reasons.

As for the "ethical values" --otherwise only stressed in churches that often-- I'd prefer it not that outspoken, rather realising it, which in so far is done by Emacs developers.



Just my two cents :-)

reply via email to

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