On Wednesday, July 12, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> > This really looks like FUD against SourceForge, but using a spurious
> > difference between "free" and "open source".
>
> The difference isn't spurious. The Free Software Movement has been
> campaigning for computer users' freedom since 1984. We talk about political
> issues such as freedom, right and wrong, and what kind of life computer
> users can have, as well as practical issues of using computers. We brought
> the GNU/Linux operating system into existence, and have been advocating
> freedom for software users since our inception.
Very nice. I tend to delete messages like this, taking comfort in the knowledge
that I've been "online" for longer than a good 99% of the people that frequent
and use the "net" today. I've seen the talks about censoring newsgroups, back
when a 19'200bps usenet feed was considered a major node. Back when you knew
that darn IP address for that ftp site at MIT as well as any possible DNS name
it may have happened to have. Back when you could actually phone someone at the
NOC for an occuring IP routing loop, get someone on the phone who knew what you
were talking about, and actually be able to do something about it. Even back then
there were "nutcases" (you'll have to indulge me here, waaaay off topic, and yes,
a little "personal" to boot) that seemed to have a nack for splitting the smallest
hairs. I'm sure that had we the services of these people available to us in the
1920's, we'd have succeeded in splitting the atom at a much earlier time... but
I digress.
Hmm, saying that the FSF brought the GNU/Linux OS into existance, is like saying
that churchill and his croonies created the atom bomb. You (and they) may have
created a position or environment where the item being created flourished in. It
is not a very sound argument to assume that the item being created would have
never made it without these conditions.
You talk about freedom, about right and wrong. I fail to see where the freedom
is in the GPL. Yes, it does provide for "free" access to the source used to
create a particular product. But at the same time it does little to further the
"cause" of mankind. I fail to see how it promotes right and wrong. Only the
FSF (or some other organization) wanting to enforce the GPL on someone can try
and point a finger towards right and wrong. A court of law then needs to decide
who is right and who is wrong. By enforcing the GPL on someone, are you not
taking away some of their freedom, however right or wrong their actions may be?
Would the FSF not be dictating a moral code and/or standard by introducing the
GPL, and stating that free software must adhere to it?
Far be it from me to claim that politics did not enter into the "net" picture
back in the golden glory days. As I've said before, there were always "nutcases"
around. Happily, the old kill file did a bang-up job of getting rid of their
crud. With time, moderation (on newsgroups) also helped. What I am trying to
say is that the FSF has (or better, had) a good thing going. They have the look
and might to make corporate lawyers sit up, and take notice. However, in order
not to alienate increasing numbers into a backlash situation, it would be prudent
for the FSF to take stock of what it has, of what its users want, and how to
adjust to a brave new world.
> The Open Source Movement began in 1998 and advocates much the same practical
> measures as we do, but with a totally different philosophy: they studiously
> avoid raising the political issues, and cite only practical convenience as
> the reason why users should be free to copy and change software.
You seem to have your history straight. Somewhat. I'm not exactly sure what
or more exactly "who" the opensource movement really is. I'm pretty sure "who"
the GPL/freesoftware movement is. At least there are vocal people who thump
their chest, and say "I am", and "I did" in reference to such a creature. It
has always been a rather disgusted fascination of mine to watch the weird and
wonderfull ways that some people "pride" themselves with country, territory,
accomplishments, and/or achievement. At the same time, other groups, well known
throughout their field quietly go about their jobs, creating things which leave
a lasting impression, a fingerprint for the rest of the world to see, and some-
times even take for granted. One such group I would have to talk about would be
the BSD group out of Berkeley. Did their original licensing terms for the BSD
code not follow in a "truer" sense of the word of freedom? What about the
original MIT project athena license for X?
Having said all the above, I'll raise this one last point. Again, waaay off
topic (not really CVS related, maybe on a very distant tangent...). The reasons
for me writing code are the following: (Not necessarily in order of importance)
1) Someone pays me to write code.
2) Something interests me, I write code to "dabble", much like a painter.
3) Some bug bothers me, I write code to "fix" and make things better.
4) Some group/code-base is working on a worthwhile cause, I write code to
help out and contribute.
In case #1, I assign the copyright of the code to the people/person who paid
me to write the code. I don't keep any copy of it around. Should I re-invent
some of the code a while later, so be it. Think of it like being a carpenter,
you can build more than one house, just don't use parts of one you've already
sold to someone else.
In case #3, I tend to release the code with the understanding that it will fall
under the same copyright that the original code was written under. It is a
contribution, not a "creation".
In the rest of the cases, I've never seen the need to have the weight of the
GPL holding back my code. The BSD license has been more than adequate. Some
of the smaller things I've released without any license, simply "public domain".
Never have I written code in order for it to be "free" in the GPL sense. So while
the FSF may have been advocating and has pushed freedom for a long time, one of the
biggest tools it brandishes about, the GPL, is rarely a good reason to feel like
you've accomplished something in the "net" world. Would it not be better to try
and see why the opensource movement was "created" in 1998? Since (as a lot of
people seem to state) the two movements have roughly the same goals in mind, does
the creation of the opensource movement not point out a deficiency in the FSF?
A need that was not met? I'd love to discuss these issues at length, I believe
they are important, and will become even more so in the future, unfortunately.
However, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list is hardly the place for this discussion.
Boy, do I miss the days when peering was as simple as two network admins going
out for coffee, and deciding that such an arrangement was a good thing...
--Toby.
