Warning: off topic > > Many in the "Open Source" camp are opposed to the GPL approach. > > They want the "freedom" to take open software and convert it to > > closed software. > > But is that what Open Source stands for? I usually consider ESR's The=20 > Cathedral and the Bazaar as the philosophy of the Open Source movement.=20 > It doesn't say anything about making the software proprietary. The fact=20 > that some people claim something in the name of something doesn't make=20 > that the original intent.
Good point. I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know what the original intent of "Open Source" was. At first it sounded like an attempt to reduce confusion by replacing the word Free with the word Open. And that seemed reasonable. But since then, I've seen a lot of politics and empire building and various descriptions of the difference between Free Software and Open Software, and now we have a bigger and more confusing mess than before. > > > We're more like OS in that we don't argue but just build the > > > hardware.=3D20 Both FS and OS people will be able to use it, since > > > the concept of=3D20 freedom that the former use does not apply to > > > hardware, and because it=3D20 works just great. > > > > What concept of freedom does not apply to hardware? > > > > Hardware can be more difficult to modify than software, and making > > copies costs more, but the right to do so is the same. > > You are right. IIRC RMS never worried about whether he had the RTL to=20 > the computers he was programming for (firmware is another thing); he=20 > considered that immutable. But you're right, it does apply. Even zealots can be pragmatic at times. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
