Moderators: snarkout, Patrick, dann
This definitely explains why RMS is so adamant about the difference between "open source" and "free software."Eric S. Raymond is one of the three big figures in open source, together with Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman. During a talk for the Long Island Linux User Group, he made some interesting statements about the GPL, namely that the GPL is no longer needed due to the way the open source movement works.
No. That does not explain why RMS is so adamant about the difference between "open source" and "free software". RMS does not agree with the Open Source movement, because it does not stress "freedom" as an important goal. The Open Source movement was invented as a way to specifically not ever talk about freedom.Claudio wrote:This definitely explains why RMS is so adamant about the difference between "open source" and "free software."
Well, that's what I was getting at with my comment. ESR making these claims only solidifies what RMS has said all along. I agree that "open source" isn't "free software." Many have had a hard time making this distinction, and this is proof positive of what RMS has said all along regarding the open source movement. I never hinted that one was actually better than the other in terms of software.greggh wrote:No. That does not explain why RMS is so adamant about the difference between "open source" and "free software". RMS does not agree with the Open Source movement, because it does not stress "freedom" as an important goal. The Open Source movement was invented as a way to specifically not ever talk about freedom.Claudio wrote:This definitely explains why RMS is so adamant about the difference between "open source" and "free software."
The "Free Software" movement has been from its beginning a political movement in the guise of a technology movement. For RMS, freedom has always been the goal, not technically better software.
I've seen this as well, even in education. There is fear of the GPL because of this, though I think it's a bit misplaced. Either way, isn't this why the LGPL exists though?Patrick wrote:In the industry I work in I've encountered a good amount of negativity towards the concept of "Free software" and not so much in regards to "Open Source". Many so called "technical people" and lawyers have a major problem with the GPL but none with BSD, LGPL, Apache, Mozilla, etc.. They consider GPL to be "viral". I've heard that phrase repeated on numerous occasions. I'm just sharing my experiences.
That's interesting. I just found this company that was using Linux and switched to FreeBSD:Patrick wrote:In the industry I work in I've encountered a good amount of negativity towards the concept of "Free software" and not so much in regards to "Open Source". Many so called "technical people" and lawyers have a major problem with the GPL but none with BSD, LGPL, Apache, Mozilla, etc.. They consider GPL to be "viral". I've heard that phrase repeated on numerous occasions. I'm just sharing my experiences.
Read the rest at: http://www.tomahawkcomputers.com/fund-r ... e-one.htmlWhy we switched to BSD?
GPL license requirement of Linux make it illegal for graphic card manufacturers, printer manufacturers, sound card manufacturers, and various other device manufacturers to develop and distribute closed source binary drivers. Therefore, users of earlier versions of Tomahawk Desktop were left with no reliable drivers to get vital tasks done.
