FSFE President Urges Community To Strengthen Open Source As a Brand 152
Georg Greve, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), has an insightful look at FOSS from a brand perspective with urgings that the community come together and strengthen open source as a unified brand. "There are plenty of false enemies to go around. Ironically, the most common form of false enemy is found around the animosity that has built around branding and framing issues, more specifically in the area of 'Free Software' vs 'Open Source.' Name-calling and quarreling on either side is not helpful, and serves to hide the common base and interest in having a strong brand and powerful message. The historical facts around Free Software are well documented and available to anyone who wishes to look them up. But instead of focusing on past insults and wrongs, I believe our focus should be on the future. We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all. So we should rein in the name-callers on either side, and empower those people who know how to build cooperation, corporations, and positive feedback loops."
Pfah. (Score:5, Funny)
Refrain from name-calling? What an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So? You fight like a farmer. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
When people who are frustrated at the trend to create de-featured pablum by Ubuntu/KDE/Gnome/Xorg etal complain and get mocked what reason would I have to help them? Right now the Fedora team has at least added some functionality back. I'm not sure they can add it all back if the trend at creating pablum for the masses continues and the features are not just ripped out but actively prevented from being added back in easily.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea how anatomically correct your metaphor is don't you?
False friends, as well as false enemies (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a story in the Firehose a couple days ago that had links to NEC and Panasonic's "source code download" site for their Japanese Docomo phones.
They've been on the Linux bandwagon for years and have been giving away the source. However, they have added the extra stipulation that downloaders need to have actually bought the phone (and require the IMEI to prove it).
This is in direct violation of GPLv2's section 3b which requires the source be available to all.
Anyway, I thought that was interesting and wondered why it never reached the front page (it was orange, so interest was high). And seeing as how the current story is about false friends and false enemies, I thought it appropriate to point out how some of the biggest exploiters of Linux are also sometimes enemies of free software.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad you did provide an link to it so that we could vote it up.
Re:False friends, as well as false enemies (Score:5, Informative)
Nowhere does it say that you have to make copies of your work available for everybody, neither does it say that you have to make the source available to everybody.
What it does do is prevent anybody who already has copies of the work (obtained by legal/lawful means), and/or the source code, making it available to others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Section 3.B:
To give any third party, not merely a third party that happens to know my magic number that give me access.
At my company we always choo
Re: (Score:2)
The "it" in "Accompany it with a written offer" refers to your application does it not? Those people who you're not giving "it" to, are not entitled to receive such an offer. They could, however, get that offer through people who did receive the application.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but if you give me the written offer, I believe I'm capable of transferring it to anyone I wish to work on that software on my behalf. If you read up on the early Stallman writings, he was worried that non-technical people would be unable to work on the software themselves. I have always interpreted that clause as part of the solution. Someone who knows nothing about software can hire a third party to fix the software on their behalf. In that case, I would transfer my written offer to that third
Re: (Score:2)
You are free to re-distribute the code to anyone and everyone, but this doesn't oblige the distributors you got it from (who might be the original authors, and who might have charged you for the software) to do so themselves. Their only responsibility is to you. Here's a relevant FAQ entry directly from the FSF:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic [fsf.org]
'If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a char
Re: (Score:2)
One should never RTFA, indeed ... (Score:4, Interesting)
This was when I stopped.
CC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed.
There are people in the commercial realm who will claim that the differences between Open Source and Commercial are insignificant, and that the current state of the code should be the sole quality by which they are judged. And the Open Source people will foam at the mouth over it, because the differences are very significant.
Then those same people will turn around and claim that the differences between Free Software and Open Source are insignificant.
Compromises that grant others leverage over you ar
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
There are people in the commercial realm who will claim that the differences between Open Source and Commercial are insignificant, and that the current state of the code should be the sole quality by which they are judged. And the Open Source people will foam at the mouth over it, because the differences are very significant.
Then those same people will turn around and claim that the differences between Free Software and Open Source are insignificant.
Compromises that grant others leverage over you are never insignificant.
I agree with you and wanted to add an opinion about the one part of this you did not mention. In the article/summary they talk about strenghtening Open Source as a "brand". One of the social aspects of Open Source that I dearly enjoy is that the people involved in it generally don't need for it to be a brand and they don't need slick marketing in order to see the merits of something. They tend to be freethinkers and thus are generally much more sophisticated, discerning and independent than that.
I rea
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely correct.
The value of programmer is not in the number of secrets he knows, nor is the value of software in the number of secret actions it takes (i.e. software w/o secrets is by deffinition, open source)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, I'll bite.
The OSI and FSF license criteria are more or less identical. Or at least they were the last time I tried to compare them.
Aside from the actual code, the licenses would form the substance of the movement, no?
Re:One should never RTFA, indeed ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why stop? For someone associated with the FSF to finally speak the truth on this matter is delightfully refreshing. There is no substantive difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. Yeah, you might be able to find some inconsequential differences that do not apply to any actual software, but that only proves the point of it not being substantive.
Re:One should never RTFA, indeed ... (Score:5, Informative)
One is to believe there was a substantial difference in the software referred to by the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source."
He is referring to a specific definition -- the original definition -- for Open Source, which was practically the same as Free Software. Standing by itself there, without context, he seems inconsistent, but he's not. Now read down a bit,
Open Source is a failed re-branding effort over which its creators lost control, followed by brand degradation through abuse and over-extension into areas such as business and development models.
This is where the Open Source and Free Software divide when it comes to definitions. The brand Open Source was abused and stretched so that it is no longer consistent with Free Software. This makes his statements consistent with the official FSF stance: that Open Source and Free Software are now two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
You could say the same thing about Free Software, as 90% of the population uses that term to refer to proprietary freeware (internet explorer, flash, etc).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why did you stop?
The Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative are very different in philosophy and how they present themselves. There are often serious disagreements on what is best to do on on legal and political issues.
However, when it comes to writing software, the two are very similar. They encourage the same things, and differ only slightly in the licenses they accept.
The software written by a Free Software developer out of ideology is basically indistinguishable from that written b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you hadn't stopped reading there you would understand the context that makes this statement true. Read the next paragraph and it will make sense. In fact, TFA addresses important differences between Open Source and Free Software.
Hint: in your quoted sentence he is referring to a specific, older definition for Open Source.
The Meaning Of "Free" (Score:5, Insightful)
Although he insists that there's no difference between "Free Software" and "Open Software", he needs to realize that he won't get far in truly creating a "brand", which he also refers to as "anyone's gut feeling", using a word that the majority of those "anyone"s out there have a "gut feeling" means something other than what he intends it to mean.
To anyone who is not part of the F/OSS movement, "free software" means software that doesn't cost anything, and it always will. Don't try to change people's perception of words to match what your product is, change the words you use to steer people's perception of the product. If it's freedom you want to communicate, then do it with the word "freedom", or the word "open", or something similar, but not "free", which, when placed in front of a product (such as "software"), always implies "zero dollars" to the rest of the world.
Re:The Meaning Of "Free" (Score:5, Interesting)
I prefer Hippyware. Free Software is ambiguous because people think it means software-that-you-don't-pay-for. Open Source is ambiguous because people think it means software-with-source-code-you-can-see (but not necessarily have any right to modify or redistribute). Open Source is also bad marketing, because most people don't care about the source code (although they may care, from a business standpoint, about the associated benefits of having certain rights to the source code).
In contrast, no one I've spoken to has ever misinterpreted Hippyware. People either know what it means, or they ask. They never walk around thinking it means one thing when it means something else, a problem that both Open Source and Free Software share. Software Libre also works, but Hippyware rolls off the tongue a lot better.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I take it you're a proponent of proprietary software? Because I sure wouldn't want to use something called "hippyware".
Re: (Score:2)
So, I take it you're a proponent of proprietary software? Because I sure wouldn't want to use something called "hippyware".
Why not, man?
Re: (Score:2)
Your term, however, diminishes the significance of the values behind the term. Many people will not at something with that name too seriously. Nobody takes hippies seriously. So try again.
If I had mod points I would have modded you funny, though.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If I had mod points, I would mod him Goddamn-dirty-longhair.
Re:The Meaning Of "Free" (Score:4, Insightful)
Flying Free and Flying High (Score:2)
no one I've spoken to has ever misinterpreted Hippyware. People either know what it means, or they ask. They never walk around thinking it means one thing when it means something else, a problem that both Open Source and Free Software share. Software Libre also works, but Hippyware rolls off the tongue a lot better
There aren't going to ask, they are going think that you are stoned. Which strikes me as a perfectly normal reaction to geek-speak.
Software not in the public domain comes with restrictions on its
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Open Software".
Interesting. I think that would better imply the proper meaning than "Open Source Software", which to the average person means that the source is available for viewing.
P.S. He talked about "Open Source Software", which is why this stuck out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was a typo on my part, but it is perhaps a better term. I'll happily take all credit if it catches on. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Libre Software!
Free Sofware is Free, even that Free can mean the freedom, like as well the free price.
But Libre, is what just can not be mistaken to price.
Re: (Score:2)
Although he insists that there's no difference between "Free Software" and "Open Software"
He's saying that there is little difference between the original definition for Open Source and the definition for Free Software, which is true. It's all about context, which is provided by the following paragraph.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more than just the brand. It's also the marketing. Saying "free as in freedom, not free as in beer" turns off a lot of potential customers because their proprietary software vendors provide them with free beer and strippers.
why does open source need marketing? (Score:4, Insightful)
unless you belong to an open source organization, it doesn't seem at all clear
that open source as a concept needs to maintain 'branding' at all.
FOSS Brand?! (Score:2)
I don't think so. What is a "brand"? It's a lot of things, but it becomes a unified symbol representing a variety of things to a variety of people. For some it is a symbol of freedom. Good. For some it is a symbol of quality. Not good! For some it may represent any number of other things, but the bottom line is that "FOSS Brand" cannot even think to represent or guarantee all things to all people. Some FOSS projects are good. Others are not good. Some were good but are no longer. Without a centra
Re:FOSS Brand?! (Score:4, Informative)
The Catholic Church split and became the Church of England and the Catholic church.
Actually is was more like the protoChurch splitting into the Catholic Church the Greek Orthodox Church and some sects and orders that existed for a while there after before either being Assimilated, Exterminated or driven to some geographical region were they were practically unreachable.
Now a bit later Lutheran Protestants appeared and split from the Catholics. And AFTER that the King of England broke with the Pope and established a new order with the Crown as a the head of the English Church.
Of course this is EXTREME SIMPLIFICATIONS of complex historical processes and events. But the splitting of the English Church from the Catholic faith did not happen in a vacuum.
Re:FOSS Brand?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux :) )
That's enough to make it a 'known entity' amongst some, if it wasn't branded as such, each distro called themselves something completely unique, then they wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of effort and support behind them. The fact that each distro can call themselves a Linux distro makes it completely different.
I don't think we need a single thing to market when having many flavours is quite sufficent.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the point is that we should eliminate "the flavours", I see this more as saying "hey, we're all looking at things from a similar perspective, so let's push that", I mean, sort of like saying OK, let's not just push Linux, let's also push *BSD, OpenSolaris, and FreeDOS ... all at the same time, I mean who CARES that the *BSD license is not copyleft? (well ... BSD developers I guess, 'cause they can't use GPL'ed code, but anyway), it's definitely an open source project and it's a project that's
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux :) )
I'm not fatally jealous, I'm not involved with GNU, and even think that FSF is a bit too radical sometimes (not that we don't need that, too). However, saying it's Linux is disrespectful. Even saying it's GNU/Linux doesn't include all who wrote software for various distros, but it's much much closer. Much software and almost all current distros would break if you removed GNU components; start with bash, and go on with gcc, and go on with automake. And no, I don't consider bash replaceable, and gcc is a quit
Re: (Score:2)
So is it nowadays called jealousy to give credit where credit is due?
That whole issue is just historic and has really little to do with credit. If you want to give credit you have to call it GNU/Linux/Xorg/KDE/Gnome/Ubuntu/Firefox/OpenOffice/..., but that of course is a little impractical. The issue popped up in the first place because GNU was building bits and pieces of an operation system and so did Linus, both gave their creation a name and the Linux name got popular, even so its technically wrong, as its just the kernel, not the complete OS, so the GNU peolpe wanted thei
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I call it Debian GNU/Linux... :)
Re: (Score:2)
(only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux :) )
Not only: Occasionally people need the term to distinguish between GNU/Linux, Busybox/Linux, and GNU/kFreeBSD. :)
I'd love to.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
---> Joke
o
/|\ <- You
/ \
Re: (Score:1)
Bruce Perens' take (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's pretty clear what RMS would say, and (hopefully) why.
What's more interesting is Bruce Perens' take on it. Bruce founded the Open Source Institute with Eric S. Raymond, but Bruce himself has stated that "it's time to talk about Free Software again" as opposed to Open Source, due to the unintended conceptual dilution that Open Source has been exposed to.
Okies (Score:4, Insightful)
But instead of focussing on past insults and wrongs, I believe our focus should be on the future. We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all.
I guess I agree with him in this. There are people on all sides of these issues that are far too concerned about being right and preaching their "Right Way". Name calling and other childish behaviour is counter-productive. What is needed is good debate on the issues and without ad hominem attacks that only detract and distract.
That being said my feeling is that those that idolizes various ways of distributing, publishing or retail of software is becoming increasingly marginalized; which is a good thing. Dogmatic subscription to an ideology is always a powerful activator for the Us Vs Them instinct that seems to run through so much of our public debates and arguments.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This was actually discussed a couple days ago here on /.
The topic was slightly different, but the parallels exist. Essentially, any difficult concept must be broken down into simpler but less accurate statements in order for the general public to digest them. So when a scientist sees a rise in atmospheric methane levels and has traced the rise to melting methane ice due to increased global temperatures, he needs to 1) explain it simply so that the layman can understand and 2) explain the consequences of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd wager that time has very little to do with it. More like, debating issues on merits would fatally wound, kill, bury, and hold funeral services for this concept that all viewpoints are inherently equal. They're not. Some of them are supported by facts and reasoning.
For example, take the gun control issue. You know what I have never, ever once heard an anti-gun/pro-g
Re:Okies (Score:5, Interesting)
And since the large majority of people that use open source are also not involved in it, fixing it won't necessarily translate into additional users.
The two main reasons that companies I have worked in don't use open source software is either because they want a paid technician on the other end of the phone, or it was felt the quality wasn't as good.
I suggest Mr. Greve expend his energy on overcoming those two issues if he wants to expand the acceptance of open source software. One only has to wade through the mountains of crap on SourceForge to question whether it is worth the effort to search for the good stuff that surpasses commercial options, or just go buy something.
Re: (Score:2)
Except no on hears the name calling other than people like Greve. I don't hear it, because I'm not involved in it. And since the large majority of people that use open source are also not involved in it, fixing it won't necessarily translate into additional users. The two main reasons that companies I have worked in don't use open source software is either because they want a paid technician on the other end of the phone, or it was felt the quality wasn't as good. I suggest Mr. Greve expend his energy on overcoming those two issues if he wants to expand the acceptance of open source software. One only has to wade through the mountains of crap on SourceForge to question whether it is worth the effort to search for the good stuff that surpasses commercial options, or just go buy something.
I suppose you haven't heard of Red Hat, Novell, or IBM, they offer paid support for F/OSS, unless a paid technician means something else
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Greve's whining about name calling and it's impact on open source is minor compared to the PERCEPTIONS of support and quality that are out there. Fix the perceptions and deal with the reality that there is a ton of open source crap out there in addition to the good stuff.
Ribbon! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We need a Ribbon!
Not one that loops mid you. It must be an open ribbon !
Possibly in hex.
False Premise (Score:4, Interesting)
Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers. That would be like creating a brand for things you heard from "Some guy at a bar". Oh, I heard from some guy at a bar that open source software needs to create a unified brand. Isn't the open source community sort of intentionally decentralized? Creating a brand to unify this stuff would be actually very deceptive. The way distributions currently brand their components is probably about as honest and accurate as anyone should require from a product perspective.
There is no "official" open source organization. It's a concept.
Re:False Premise (Score:4, Interesting)
But there is a brand whether or not it's intentionally created. The output of this "random barbarian horde of software developers" all falls under a single label, "open source", and therefore has the "open source" brand. He describes a brand as being "anyone's gut feeling". In other words, what is it that people think of when they hear "open source software"? Well, that's the brand. It may not have been shaped by anyone intentionally, but it still exists. So, he wants to shape it.
He also makes the point that the de facto brand is actually shaped by those who compete with open source. Microsoft, for example, shapes the open source brand through its marketing. Therefore, by not making a concerted effort to shape the brand in a positive way, the community is effectively allowing it to be shaped in a negative way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But there is a brand whether or not it's intentionally created. The output of this "random barbarian horde of software developers" all falls under a single label, "open source", and therefore has the "open source" brand. He describes a brand as being "anyone's gut feeling". In other words, what is it that people think of when they hear "open source software"? Well, that's the brand. It may not have been shaped by anyone intentionally, but it still exists. So, he wants to shape it.
It is being branded, though- by Red Hat and Canonical and such. They each brand their own open source ecosystems, as does Mozilla. I believe the branding of open source should remain on a per project basis. As it stands in the mainstream, I would contend that open source is a "feature" moreso than a "brand".
It's not going to be a team effort...
However, props if you guys can distance yourself from GNU and the FSF. That will do wonders for notability.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However, props if you guys can distance yourself from GNU and the FSF. That will do wonders for notability.
Yeah, mad props yo. Let's forget those who began the movement...they're just hippies and commies and smelly anyway. Then we can be, um, "notable" and shit. Like Apple and Microsoft. Awww yeahhh.
Why I Dislike "Marketing" (Score:2)
But there is a brand whether or not it's intentionally created. The output of this "random barbarian horde of software developers" all falls under a single label, "open source", and therefore has the "open source" brand. He describes a brand as being "anyone's gut feeling". In other words, what is it that people think of when they hear "open source software"? Well, that's the brand. It may not have been shaped by anyone intentionally, but it still exists. So, he wants to shape it.
He also makes the point that the de facto brand is actually shaped by those who compete with open source. Microsoft, for example, shapes the open source brand through its marketing. Therefore, by not making a concerted effort to shape the brand in a positive way, the community is effectively allowing it to be shaped in a negative way.
All of that sounds to me like a substitute for evaluating the merits of all of your available software options and making your own decision based on your needs.
There's only one problem, one fatal flaw: there is no substitute for that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Re: (Score:2)
All of that sounds to me like a substitute for evaluating the merits of all of your available software options and making your own decision based on your needs.
It would be great if 100% of all decisions were based on that kind of rational analysis. Unfortunately, there's one problem: people.
People are subject to bias. People "go with their gut". And people's "gut" can be influenced.
You may dislike marketing, but there's a simple reason companies spend boatloads of money on it: it works. People can be influenced. And people are being influenced, in one way or another, with respect to their views of open software.
Re: (Score:2)
People who are making choices, mostly by the failure to realize that not making a choice is also a choice. People who can choose differently and who can stop being their own worst enemies when it comes to looking out for their own interests and making good decisions. I refuse to accept the status quo as immutable, in other words. It can change, and it will change the moment
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers.
Form wikipedia:
A brand is a collection of experiences and associations connected with a service, a person or any other entity.
As barbarians had its brand (loot, pillage and scoff off), so does F/OSS. It is associated with security, no-virus, gratis, hard-to-administer, BSA safe and whatnot.
In eyes of non-believers we are one, we are legion.
Barbarian Horde software (Score:2)
Open source is a random barbarian horde of software developers.
Okay, there's your brand, "Barbarian Horde". Someone else suggested "Hippyware". For some reason, I find myself thinking of gypsies. All of which suggests not that the thing is unbrandable, but that it's really challenging to come up with a brand that would appeal to business and normals. It would be nice if it also appealed to counter-culture types, but that just makes the problem even harder.
The reign in Spain (Score:4, Funny)
Can we also empower those people who know the difference between the words "reign", meaning the possession of power or authority, and "rein", which is the strap that you use to control a horse?
Then maybe we could rein in some of the worst abuses of the English language.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can we also empower those people who know the difference between the words "reign", meaning the possession of power or authority, and "rein", which is the strap that you use to control a horse?
Then maybe we could rein in some of the worst abuses of the English language.
Next thing ya know, you'll want people to stop calling themselves "editors" unless they are willing to proofread that single paragraph (a whole paragraph, what a tremendous burden huh?) before submitting it to an audience of many tens of thousands of people.
Re: (Score:2)
This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Branding (Score:4, Interesting)
Alternately, Bob could make better shoes to add value to it's shoes. Unfortunately, the consumer can't always see this value. People won't pay more for unperceived value. Unless Bob wants to build his brand as a high quality product, he can make more money paying Disney for their logo
This would be difficult to apply to "Free Software", because there's so much of it out there, of mixed quality. If it ever took off, and people began associating "Free Software" with quality, anyone could misappropriate the brand, and it's perceived value would fall.
A new brand is in order. Something like LibertySoft(tm) or FSFsoft(tm) that would apply to projects that met certain levels of quality and had a free enough license. Some organization like the FSF would have to own the trademark, and police misuses of the brand.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean something like GNU (although it's not a trademark and isn't policed)?
And what would that brand teach people? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then let's hope the Open Source Initiative's days of calling free software activism "ideological tub-thumping" are behind them. I don't see branding as a means of teaching people about software freedom (the very thing the OSI doesn't talk about in their belief that businesses don't want to hear about user's freedoms), but I'm happy to learn about branding efforts that explicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake and defending it for future generations so as to build and maintain social solidarity. My experience is that efforts aimed at branding something typically aim for narrow commercial interests: convenience, ease-of-use, and reliability. These things are not bad but they are insufficient for teaching people to value the freedoms to run, share, and modify computer software; those values were chosen to meet the needs of proprietors—the people and organizations that don't respect software freedom.
When it comes to teaching freedom, I don't have the trouble some say they have. I used to host a call-in radio show talking about free software and related issues. I didn't have problems explaining the philosophical difference between free software and open source nor did I have objections to playing various talks by people who went into the implications of this philosophical difference. More recently, I find that the essay "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software [gnu.org]" to be an excellent and not at all insulting essay on the philosophical differences between free software and open source. One of the essay's points that comes up repeatedly is how people who identify with each movement react in the face of powerful proprietary software. Open source advocates would go along with the proprietor, free software activists would reject the proprietor and work on something that would do the same job but respect user's software freedoms:
I have to wonder what message any brand sends before I can agree to go along with it. The FSFE essay doesn't make that clear, despite the call to action in the third paragraph from the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Then let's hope the Open Source Initiative's days of calling free software
activism "ideological tub-thumping" are behind them. I don't see branding as a
means of teaching people about software freedom (the very thing the OSI
doesn't talk about in their belief that businesses don't want to hear about
user's freedoms), but I'm happy to learn about branding efforts that
explicitly teach people about supporting software freedom for its own sake and
defending it for future generations so as to build and maintain soci
Re: (Score:2)
Focusing on ethics is likely to work if your goal is to promote ethical software. It's kind of hard to imagine anything else working, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
People say that they want to focus on the open source development ideology first then the freedom later, but they never specify when the freedom part should come in and they never get around to teaching the freedom part. As more incidents happen where freedom is a great answer to the underlying problem (anything concerning digital restrictions management, for instance) I'm convinced that ordering one's approach in that way is a huge mistake for the pursuit of software freedom. So I am not convinced that a
Re: (Score:2)
Open source was founded in 1998 as a way to stop talking about those things, to hush them up, bury them, put them out of people's sight. So they talk about practical advantages that come if you use free software.
(From Stallman's speech)
This is quite simply not true. The definition of what constitutes Open Source is right here [opensource.org], and I've virtually never seen Linus give an interview where he doesn't mention the GPL, or specifically why he likes it.
You can also read this [freebsd.org], as well. People who advocate licenses
Re: (Score:2)
Advocating the use of the GPL is not necessarily advocating for the social solidarity at the heart of software freedom. Linus Torvalds, for example, doesn't like software freedom and uses the GPL because it achieves his technical ends best not because it helps people organize around social principles of mutual aid and defending the freedom to share and modify. Initially the kernel Torvalds developed wasn't under the GPL, Torvalds initially licensed his kernel under a non-free license. You can also see To
If you don't turn onto politics... (Score:2)
Proprietors are quite ideologically pure. It's their way or the highway.
The software isn't just a "tool", thinking that way is a trick proprietors use to get you to forget about freedom concerns or dissuade you from learning about software freedom in the first place. For proprietors the goal is to get you to depend on them forever so they control how you use your computer. This is both profitable and valuable for control (both ends unto themselves).
As we see more and more with DRM, proprietors want more
Careful! (Score:2, Insightful)
Who started the bickering over the FS vs OSS terms? None other than Richard Stallman himself. It's his brands he wants promoted at the expense of other brands. There is no Linux, it is instead GNU/Linux. It's not Open Source it's Free Software. He has started both those controversies and continues to fan their flames.
So be careful with your heresies, or the FSF may excommunicate the FSFE.
Re: (Score:2)
Who started the bickering over the FS vs OSS terms? None other than Richard Stallman himself.
Since the term "Free Software" is more than a decade older than "Open Source" you have that backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? It's not about the age, it's about who first started bitching and whining about the other guy's name. That person happened to be Richard M. Stallman.
Re: (Score:2)
Except "free software" is RMS's original name. He just refused to accept a new name. Although otherwise, your point stands -- it's perhaps harmful that the flames are continuously flamed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Without Linux, GNU would not run at all. All GNU software needs an Operating System to work
Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel; together the GNU tools and Linux make up an operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel; together the GNU tools and Linux make up an operating system.
Yes, and for 6 years the FSF were unable to get their own kernel working.
Stop trivialising the importance of the kernel simply so that Stallman can claim universal credit for everything.
Also, try using your own brain while you're at it. The distortions and outright lies which the FSF peddles wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't for the number of drones going around who regurgitate them wholesale.
impossible utopian dream (Score:2)
I don't think they're the same... (Score:2)
Look at the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] and compare that with the Free Software Definition [fsf.org]. I'm using the definitions from OSI and the FSF because, for all intents and purposes, I think that they have a reasonable claim on defining the corresponding term.
There are some licenses that are OSI-certified [opensource.org] but not Free Software Licenses [gnu.org] (according to the FSF). These include:
* The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3
* The Reciprocal Public License
I'm also a bit wary of this part of the OSD:
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
So that's saying that a li
Re: (Score:2)
The FSF considers the QPL a free software licence
Hmm... that's interesting. I mean they do point out the inherent difficulties and suggest a different license...
It also causes major practical inconvenience, because modified sources can only be distributed as patches.
...but as you said, the FSF does consider this a Free Software licenses. Still, I'm not sold that this (and other patches-alongside-original-source licenses) should be considered a Free Software license. The FSF's definition of Free Software states:
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
And the GPLv2 states:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
And we can even quote the OSI definition:
The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
Programmers don't work on patches, they work on patched code. Sure, Linus merges tons of
The Bike Race Breakaway Metaphor (Score:4, Interesting)
In bicycle racing oftentimes a group of people zoom out ahead of the pack (the peloton) and try to race to the front.
The only way those people can even hope to get to the end before the peloton is if they work together and share the aerodynamic load of breaking the wind. Sometimes they work together harmoniously right to almost the very end--then they race it out between themselves.
Most times though, for various tactical reasons, they get squirreley with each other and refuse to cooperate evenly to maximize speed. While they're squirreling around, the peloton bears down on them and swallows them up.
BSD and GNU are on a breakaway from closed source software. They each want an ecosystem where sharing and cooperation are the primary values. They each take different routes. BND is not as radical as GNU, but GNU does more to hamper closed software. Nevertheless, they are each in a breakaway from the closed source peloton.
Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally. AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to! But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway!!!! It makes for a better race!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally. AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to! But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway!!!! It makes for a better race!!
There's a lot of cooperation between the BSD and the GNU/Linux people. At least I think that there is. And there are a lot of people who call themselves "Open Source Programmers" who cooperate well with people who call themselves "Free Software Programmers".
But at the end of the day the differences that I observe, personally, is that people that tend to use the term "Open Source" have a certain mentality that opening the source code is a useful business model, while people that use the term "Free Software"
Re:The Bike Race Breakaway Metaphor (Score:4, Interesting)
That's really inspiring and stuff, but, like all analogies, leaves some things out. This is why analogies are a tool for explaining things, not for coming to some logical conclusion (there is no Proof by Analogy in discrete math). Many of the OSI crowd just really don't care how close the dreaded "proprietary software" comes to competing with them, they just want to do their thing the best way they know how. Wiping out proprietary software is the goal of the FSF guys, it's a side effect for the OSI guys.
/is/ on /your/ side.
And what is all of this "wasted energy" nonsense? How is having ideological discussions wasted energy? These users of software, for the most part, don't really care what their software is licensed under. This is something that's really only discussed by the developers of software (and possibly their employers), and so maybe if the OSI and FSF were to join forces to get the proprietary software devs, this might make sense. But I don't see discussion of ideologies as something that hampers the use of F/OSS.
On top of this, I see most of the animosity from the FSF side; they are the ones who are all hung up on ideology and get angry when people *gasp* even explain how to install proprietary software. I know, it's not fair to equate RMS' ideology with that of the entire FSF organization, but he
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, I've had the opposite experience. It's the BSD zealots that keep insisting that their software is "more free" than GPL, because you can even make it non-free (and they believe that is a good thing, because it means more people may use their software). Most of the GPL zealots tend more toward "we don't care who uses our software, because it's freedom that's important, not popularity". This comes across (to me, at least) as much less strident, not to mention more convincing.
Like all anecdotal eviden
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember watching the TDF a few years ago. There was a breakaway that opened up a huge gap. As the kilometers wore on, riders who couldn't keep the pace dropped from the breakaway and got swallowed by the peleton. Finally, there were just two riders left. They knew one would take the stage. At the 1KM banner, they slowed, shook hands, and each went for the finish.
First cooperation, then competition.
Excellent Points (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy makes some excellent points that will no doubt fall upon many deaf ears.
And to be honest its safe to ignore people like this if you are a hobbyist and don't care whether you will continue to have hardware support for your hobby machine. After all, you can just have some fun reverse engineering the drivers you need.
The only reason to care about branding for open source and free software is if you actually expect businesses to embrace it and invest resources in developing things that work with it. You know, to enable doing the kinds of things people have come to expect to be able to do with a desktop computer.
I remember a time when it was a fair challenge to get much more than vga out of xfree86 due to lack of drivers, and when many modems and ethernet cards simply didn't work in Linux. Printers same thing. Forget about a scanner or digital camera. It was a pain in the butt for anyone with aspirations to actually have a desktop useful for much more than tinkering with itself. This has always been a limitation of open source. Things have gotten much better. And for things to continue to get better, the community should put some effort into thinking about others' perceptions of open source and trying to improve them. This is how people (including executives with very little technical interest or knowledge) make decisions end up impacting our community.
Loosely translated... (Score:5, Funny)
"Somebody please tell RMS to StFU [francis.edu]."
We need to unite (Score:2)
there are a lot of real enemies around. ranging from patent trolls to derelict distribution companies buying legislation. we can stand united against them. we have to.
I don't get this. (Score:3, Insightful)
We should realize that what divides us pales in comparison to what we have in common and that division and exclusion are harmful to us all. So we should reign in the name-callers on either side, and empower those people who know how to build cooperation, corporations, and positive feedback loops.
Ok. You first. Muzzle Richard and get back to us on how well that goes.
Thanks
Open Source Software (Score:2)