Dear Henry Jensen:
I find that your misunderstanding is because the permanent opensource
position to minimize our position which has made many people believe
that we just want to fight over non trascendental issues. It is an
important issue for us and if we are to work together with open source,
the first step is that they recognize we do not have the same values as
they do but that we can collaborate. We understand their position but
they do not understand ours. I beleive FSFE has to define if they agree
with FSF or OSI.
Maybe Richard Stallman's position in reply to Karsten Gerloff (president
of FSFE) will show you what is the position of FSF.
On 31/08/11 08:02, Richard Stallman wrote:
Please stop telling people that free software is another name
for open source!
From our point of view, "Open Source Software" and "Free Software" are
just two different names for the same thing, with the names (and the
people who use them) having a focus on different aspects.
That's not a point of view, it is just a mistake. It isn't true, and
it undermines our efforts to teach people where we stand.
This doesn't sound so different from a statement by Richard on
November 17, 2008:
"Free software" and "open source" are the names of two different
political viewpoints within the free software community - the
community built by the free software movement.
You seem to have got my meaning 180 degrees wrong. I did not say they
are the same -- quite the contrary, I said they are "two different
political viewpoints".
I could have said "opposing political viewpoints", but I was trying
to be gentle about it, following your advice.
Sometimes I say they are "political parties", because free software
and open source are analogous to political parties that disagree on
basic issues.
"Green" and "Democratic" are two political camps in the US. Does that
mean they are two names for the same country? No, neither one is a
name for the country. Each one is the name of a party. Likewise,
"free software" is the name of one party, and "open source" is the
name of another party. These two parties disagree about "What's this
all about?"
Do you follow?
Thus far I've explained how these two are different. Now to turn to
strategy: here's why it is vital to show people they are different.
If you go around saying "Green and Democratic are the same thing", you
would do the Green Party tremendous damage. Likewise, saying that
free software and open source are the same thing does the Free
Software Movement tremendous damage.
The main point we try to communicate people is "Insist on freedom in
your software". The open source camp rejects that. They outnumber
us; everyone in our community has heard their views. And everyone in
our community tends to assume we share those views. And they will
keep assuming this until we stand in front of them and shout:
NO we do NOT agree with the "open source" views you have heard!!!
This is something DIFFERENT -- VERY DEEPLY different!!!
Some people need this several times before they actually believe
we are different from open source.
Please do not tell them we are the same as open source. That works
against our efforts.
Since you think your statement was similar to mine,
"Free software" and "open source" are the names of two different
political viewpoints within the free software community - the
community built by the free software movement.
how about saying precisely that? It tells people what we need them to
know, about the difference.
On 31/08/11 08:02, Richard Stallman wrote:
If we want to bring people over to our point
of view, it is important to bridge the gap, rather than to open it
further.
In general we can't bring confirmed open source supporters to our
side; they won't change their stand. The people we can convince are
the people who have not yet made up their minds.
In order to win them over, we have to show them there is a choice for
them to make. We have to show that we stand for something _different_
from the open source ideas that they hear from so many others. In my
experience, that works.
I don't insist you focus on telling people about this difference. But
stop trying to negate the efforts of those of us who do.
--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517
"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
