> Obviously, open source will figure prominently We use the term Free Software to represent what we care about here, since the important aspect is that you have the freedom to run, study, share and modify the code, not merely that someone is willing to show it to you. "open source" is something different and less meaningful.
> However, the main reason I'm posting here is that the main attraction of my museum, when it goes live, will be proprietary code. Why? Why not just stick to code that the authors are willing to share in the first place? Art museums don't usually contain the kind of art that the authors wanted to keep secret from everyone else. > The FSF and LibrePlanet, on the other hand, have more than enough clout to get noticed, so if any of you would be willing to help me get this proprietary source, please do say. I don't mean to sound unwelcoming, but I think that doing so would run against the goals and values of this community, unless the goal would be to liberate the software as well (which I doubt the companies would go for all of a sudden, as liberating software has been our main goal for 30 years). I think you would do best to focus on software that the authors want to share with the world. It's not like there's a shortage of it, and when people talk about the beauty of code, they are probably being inspired by code that they are allowed to look at. I would also recommend looking at some pages talking about what the Free Software movement cares about, perhaps you will be convinced. I especially recommend looking at this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -Alan Beadle
