Le 16 févr. 08 à 18:43, simo a écrit : >> >> Open Source movement, if opensource.org is representative of it, is >> driven by a way of developping software as it is stated in the first >> sentence of their website : "Open source is a development method for >> software (...)" > > Which is *very* debatable, a license definition can't really define a > development model, at most it may induce, due to some provisions about > redistribution, a certain collaborative model. But no more than that. > > Unfortunately most people do not understand that a license is a > license > is a license, and nothing else. It's not law, it's not a code of > ethics, > it's not a development model, or a community organization model.
I do agree, but the feeling when reading OSI website is different, they're really trying to present Free Software as a business model. I personnaly don't like much this approach, but I must admit that : 1- they have the freedom to behave like this, and say what the say 2- 'till they still defend Free Software, it's not that a big deal after all. I have my mind, people have another, but if the software is still free... >> >> Even if in the end these all boil down to the four primary freedoms, >> the two give us different approaches, and even philosophical point of >> view, of Free Software. > > The differences are mostly political. I do not think there is much > philosophy in the Open Source approach (therefore they claim to be > "practical"). I only tried to be generous to OSI and not looking too negative :-) But OK, it's a political point of view. > > >> So Bogdan, if you want to advocate and spread Free Software around >> you, I think the best way is yours whatever it is if it fit both you >> and your audience ! Sounds like a zen stanza :-) >> The only things that you'll always have to repeat are those four >> freedoms to educate people understand that the 'free' as in beer can >> only be possible because of the 'Free' as in speech, which is the >> most >> important notion. > > I don't think that talking about free beer helps at all, on the > contrary > I'd argue that explaining that free software is successful > commercially > (often called open source in this context) and is just a saner > competitive market can help a lot (depending on the audience of > course). I still agree, but I hardly ever had a conference about Free Software where the question didn't came about price. And it's not a matter of language : I'm french, so you don't have any doubt between "Libre" and "gratuit' ;-) But this questions arises very quickly because in their mind many people do consider that if they use a 'freeware' (as in beer), they are as free to do what thay want with as we use a Free Software. We shouldn't have to talk about that, but we still have to since education of the masses hasn't ended up yet on the subject :-)) > >> Free Software can be developped by a single one, but they often live >> better when supported by an active community after. > > Better if it is a community of users, that possibly end up paying for > development one way or another. Most successful projects sustain > themselves only because the software was good enough to be adopted by > "commercial" players that start funding directly or indirectly the > core > developers of the said community (with some notable exceptions). The community is often funders driven, is that what you want to say ? You're certainly right, let's not dream too much. But in the end, since the software is Free, the funders cannot steal it, and that's a real warranty for the end user. Of course, in the choice of taking a direction or another, the big funders may have more importance, which is not exactly democratic. It's certainly something we'll have to build in the next years : how should we drive Free Software developpments ? Michel _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
