Jean Louis writes:

> In general, people motivated by enthusiasm and pure interest may
> achieve much more, including achieving financial success then those
> who are purely motivated by money, which is the lowest motivation
> there is.
>
> Truly motivated people will do what they want, how they want it, how
> they like it. 

Agreed.

>> For the diversity, we never know if there're any youngmen group love to
>> create a new FOSS operating system, no matter if it's the requirement
>> from the market.

I hope so. But my reasonable mind tells me there must be some
requirement from the market, since it's the foundation to be a real
industrial level OS.
I've managed to use my GNU Artanis in real product development, and
response to the real requirements from the market. So that GNU Artanis got
polished much since then, and become stronger day after day. In the
beginning, for the architecure design, the passion matters, but for
robustness, the market requirements matters. When you get commercial
requirements, you can employ people to work on it, and it become stronger.

> But there is obviously a problem of the future of the free software
> philosophy. Free software is not same as free software philosophy.
> Majority of free software developed today carries free software
> philosophy principles with it, but people are not driving it forward
> or teaching other people, just smaller group of free software users
> would ever make speeches, teach others, or create groups to drive and
> foster free software philosophy.
>
> There is high risk that what we know as free software movement over
> the future decades gets totally corrupted into "open source" type of
> movement and even "open source" to get corrupted into various new
> perverted licenses and traps in the future.

I think we may have to release some limitations. If people contribute to
FOSS, then they're actually following free software philosophy. Most
people just want to contribute to show they good mind, and they haven't
gotten the idea of free software philosophy, this needs time. If you
tell them it's bad contribute to BSD licensed rather than GPLed
projects, then you're making enemies not friends.

After they understand the meaning of free software philosophy, then they
may understand the problem of opensource. 

> Even the abbreviation FOSS is one way of how it gets astray, I would
> not use it, and rather promote free software philosophy as strategy
> for future. One has to promote how to distinguish between free
> software and open source. Those are quite different directions, one
> carries the motivation of freedom, while other does perverts it and
> hides it.

To me, free software philosophy is a better mind to follow compared to
proprietary or opensource, but it's never a religion to me. So that I
wouldn't pick the words like FOSS or FLOSS, sometimes I use opensource
to people who never know about free software. There's limitation for the
people who lacks sufficient knowladge about your area, so I have to
use the words they can understand.

I have some friends finally understand the importance of freedome of
software, after a decade. But some are still not. It's fine to me.

As I said, when you don't treat free software a religion, many things are
understandable. The point is how can the freedom of software can help
the world.

Best regards.

-- 
GNU Powered it
GPL Protected it
GOD Blessed it
HFG - NalaGinrut
Fingerprint F53B 4C56 95B5 E4D5 6093 4324 8469 6772 846A 0058

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to