On 05/12/06, Ian Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting....
I think this is one of the problems with the Free Software movement.
"any tool that is not free-as-in-freedom is unethical"
Its kind of paradoxical to say thats one of its problems, as its the
basis of it.
This must have got quite a few people backs up?
Sometime it does, even though I (believe I) am speaking in a friendly tone.
I think this is because it is a bold assertion, that causes cognitive
dissonance in people who believe they are behaving ethically, and are
in a way 'shocked' to hear that they may not be.
Its like the 'fight' dynamic as described in
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win."
- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
But I also get people mailing me off list saying 'thanks for
explaining the free software movement in a friendly way, next time you
are in my part of the world please let me know and I'll buy you a
beer'. So I know I'm not getting everyone's backs up :-)
I'm not saying its wrong, just in the language you can see why
people object without even understanding the principle.
Yes. What alternate language do you suggest?
Richard Stallman often says that non-free software is 'subjugating
people into being divided and helpless'. This is negative vibe can put
people off, to I tend to express 'no sharing' as 'unethical' instead
of 'divided' and 'no independent improvement' as 'unsustainable'
instead of 'helpless'. Negated positives create a better vibe than
negatives.
I understand the differences between open source and free software
but the fact people are at least willing to try an alternative licence
to the "all right reserved" is a good thing in my book. Maybe with a
less in your face delivery, free software will win over even more
people
and become the poster child of a generation like open
source currently is.
"Open source" has passed its apex, and the ground has shifted, imo.
The "Open Source" perspective won't help you with Digital Restrictions
Management, or Treacherous Computing, because its diluted - you'll
accept some "closed source" DRM/TC crap, if you don't believe its
wrong to not be 'open source', which, by definition, you don't.
(Relating to the above, Richard says 'weak', but this is also a
negative vibe, so I tend to say 'diluted')
Here's some background references:
-- 8< --
Y'see, when [Open Source people] say the goal is to have powerful,
reliable, convenient software and get it cheap, then it becomes
possible for the representatives of proprietary software to say "We
claim that we'll deliver you more powerful, reliable software, we
claim that our total cost of ownership will be cheaper", and I think
it's usually bullshit.
When Microsoft says this, it's based on distorted facts. It's weak,
but when we say the goal is to live in in freedom and to be allowed to
cooperate with other people in a community, they can't say they're
going to offer us more of that, cheaper.
They don't offer that at all, they're not even competing with us.
They're out of the running. Once you decide you want to live in
freedom, they are out of the running.
So, we are trying to help you reach freedom in a community. They are
trying to subjugate you, but they say that they'll get you there
faster. And maybe they would.
-- 8< --
-
http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/transcript_of_rms_at_wsis_on_is_free_open_source_software_the_answer
-- 8< --
The Novell-Microsoft deal certainly shows Redmond's desire to draw a
line between the "free"and "open" communities. In an interview on
Friday, Bill Gates was effusive in his praise for the "purity" of
Richard Stallman, the original author of the GPL.
Did the term "Open Source" mean anything, any longer?
"They're going to have to co-opt a new vocabulary," thought Moglen,
"because the old vocabulary just died on them."
"I agree with you. This was the week 'Open Source' ceased to be a
useful phrase because it denoted everything up to and including
Microsoft's attempts to destroy free. Language is subject to this
problem. Since the beginning of time uprising movements have taken
pleasure in perverting the language of criticism used against them by
the ancien regime - the 'brave beggars' of the Netherlands, and Yankee
Doodle, and the Whigs and the Tories - it's all the same terms of
dis-endearment turned into a weapon. But the game is also played by
modern propaganda in the other direction - by turning language into
the property of the guy on top: Fox News "Fair & Balanced (tm)".
"What Microsoft did to 'Open Source' was what Stallman always said
could be done to it: first you take the politics out, and when the
veal has been bleached absolutely white, you can cover it with any
sauce you like. And that's what Microsoft did, and 'Open Source'
became the sauce on top of Microsoft proprietarianism. And once that
process has been completed they have to go after the next vocabulary."
And now?
"So now they're going to try the hard work of cracking 'Freedom'.
Free, well that means stuff you don't pay for..."
Microsoft had always been very astute in its analysis, we suggested.
While the press focused on the open, or distributed nature of the
production process, Redmond identified the fact that the GPL was viral
as the real attack. "That's right. They understood the copyleft
problem well - and understood the GPL well. But they didn't want to
talk about the enemy because of the rule in American political
campaigns that you don't say the name of your opponent in case people
remember it. They don't do that anymore. They've dropped the mask," he
suggested.
"What's happened is that "Open Source" has died as a useful phrase -
Free Software, the GPL, the FSF - all have become major stakeholders
in the industry in Microsoft's verbiage."
"Once you're a major stakeholder you don't go back to being a minor
stakeholder unless you go bankrupt - and we can never go bankrupt
because we have no business to lose.
"So if we're a major stakeholder now we stay that way until the end of
the chapter, and that's a problem for Microsoft."
-- 8< --
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/eben_moglen_on_microsoft_novell/print.html
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
