[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: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source" |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:26:18 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> Richard Stallman writes:
> > The problem you face, of course, is that "the users" are already free
> > to choose to use free software for almost all purposes, but they
> > stubbornly refuse to do so.
> >
> > There is a reason for this: most of our community labels itself "open
> > source".
>
> That's the first time I've heard you refer to open source as "our
> community". That is a welcome change!
RMS is not "most of our community", and most particularly not that part
of our community with bad labelling habits.
> This is not true of those who label themselves "open source" advocates
> who I personally mingle with. For them, "open source" is simply "free
> software" that does not require advocacy of software freedom as the
> overriding goal, but rather admits many goals (including software
> freedom as such) in various mixtures of importance.
Appreciating the benefits of freedom is not a substitute for
appreciating freedom, it is a _reason_ for appreciating freedom. The
benefits are tangible, freedom isn't.
The side effects of a philosophy are no substitute for the philosophy.
The usual mantra for Open Source is "I like Open Source because it leads
to software with fewer bugs/more features." If the metric is software
with fewer bugs, then it would be logical to use proprietary software as
long as it has fewer bugs/more features. One can take a look at
involved developers and available manhours and other resources on a
timeline and decide "given the available information, the free version
of this software will not have fewer bugs/more features in the next ten
years. So I won't use it or contribute to it."
That's a valid stance, but not really worth labelling as a philosophy,
because it is reactive, not proactive. Adopting it does not change
anything.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", (continued)
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/06/15
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Richard Stallman, 2011/06/15
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Miles Bader, 2011/06/16
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Paul Eggert, 2011/06/16
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Miles Bader, 2011/06/16
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Randal L. Schwartz, 2011/06/16
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Richard Stallman, 2011/06/16
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Miles Bader, 2011/06/17
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/06/16
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/06/16
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source",
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/06/17
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", David Kastrup, 2011/06/17
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/06/17
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", David Kastrup, 2011/06/17
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Andreas Röhler, 2011/06/17
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Jambunathan K, 2011/06/17
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Glenn Morris, 2011/06/17
- Yet another generic "free" vs. "open source" thread, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/06/19
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Jambunathan K, 2011/06/17
- Re: Please don't refer to Emacs as "open source", Alan Mackenzie, 2011/06/17