I agree to a point! But .........
If being a Free Software group means no rules at all, cause rules are
not in the right spirit, does that make it okay for me to start sending
links to porn sites I like? or attaching pictures of atrocities? How
about I start making sexist or racial comments? I'm free to do so aren't
I? You don't have the right to censor me because I like pictures of
people after terrible car accidents and want to share them.
I really don't believe Linux or Free Software promotes anarchy. The Gpl
has rules, basically it says you can share and be a nice person, BUT you
are not allowed to be a bad person and hurt other people. That to me is
a very big rule.
RMS's vision was to change society for the better. To build a community
and help your neighbour. Its about fellowship, about removing ourself s
from the dog eat dog attitude and begin a brotherhood and sisterhood
(perhaps siblinghood) for the benefit of all people.
Freedom does not mean anarchy! Do as ye will will harm to none.
Although the RTFM debate spurred on this discussion, a whole lot more
has surfaced. I'm going to see if I can contact someone from the FSF and
see what their view point is. I'm not in this discussion out of anger or
passion, it has actual got me thinking about my core beliefs.
I would like this to be a logical discussion rather than a heated argument.
another 2c
Tuxta
Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
I will use the "Royal you" in writing this. It's not referring just to
Visser, Martin, but to all the readers.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:40, Visser, Martin wrote:
Huh? When did this thread become a debate on the definition of Free or
Open Source Software?
When this group decided to advertise itself as a Linux user's group. Linux is
GPL, not Open Source. Open Source allows restriction, GPL works decidedly
against restriction - they are aligned by accident in some ways, and
diametrically opposed in others.
Linux came in on the GPL Free Software side - not the Open Source side -
that's the philosophy and the license chosen. Linus was not bamboozled into
this - he's smart and made his choice consciously - and he chose Free
Software. He's the founder and the copyright holder - perhaps we know his
philosophy about Linux from this?
Open Source is an industry initiative, and allows restrictive licenses that
allow reading the code, but not using it except at the company's terms. GPL
Free Software explicitly prevents all restriction, except the reverse
restriction that you can't use Free Software unless you make it free to
everyone.
Pretending they are the same does not make them the same - and doesn't provide
an excuse for conflating them, either. Misappropriation of Free Software is
just as unethical and illegal as software published under any other license -
or your laws and your courts are dishonest and meaningless.
So, since this group advertises itself as a Linux user's group - and Linux is
completely Free Software, not Open Source (Linux being the kernel, although
many surrounding packages are also GPL), I wondered if telling people they
can't say certain things is really in the spirit of Linux.
Copyright law holds that code is speech. It is an expression of thought, like
a poem. The person that says it naturally owns it. I can't publish your
writing over my name - I didn't say it, you did. I can't decide how it's
used - it's yours.
And I can't use code you wrote - unless you say I can, by granting me a
license.
Open Source software allows censorship of ideas - you can read the code, but
may not be granted a license to use it (that is, say it yourself in your own
pursuits).
Free Software at it's core intends to make sure everyone can use code
published under it's license, and no one can say "no, you can't use those
ideas unless you ________ (pay me and behave in certain ways, usually)".
Free Software is deliberately opposed to Open Source - read their philosophy.
So, as this group calls itself a Linux user's group, I was curious about how
they hold the idea of Free Software, and how they support it or don't.
Curtailing speech is consonant with Open Source (restrictive licenses welcome)
but is it in line with Free Software (restrictive licenses not allowed)?
If the group is actually promoting Linux, then they are promoting Free
Software - as that's what Linux is and is about. Ask Linus.
If the group couldn't care less about the philosophy of Linux (which is Free
Software, not Open Source), should it promote itself as a Linux User's Group?
Perhaps it should be an Open Source Software Group, or a Cheap or No Cost
Software Group.
Do you have a claim to the term 'Linux' if you don't actually hold to the Free
Software philosophy? Are you flying under false colors, using someone else's
image as your own?
And is telling people they can't say certain things consonant with Free
Software - with the approach, with the philosophy?
You can have group rules that limit people's behavior in participation in the
group, but are you really a Linux user's group philosophically - do you walk
the talk? Is this about Free Software, because Linux is about Free Software
- it says so in no uncertain legal terms.
I'm wondering about this, and thinking about it, and so I posed the question
to see what people have to say, to see if they've thought about it.
I posted this to the list, please reply on the list.
Regards,
Bret
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
