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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature