I think you misunderstood what I was saying and ironically your response supports my secondary point.
How can free software as a political movement avoid losing to the mere pragmatism of open source if it is so difficult to tell if any given piece of software is free, and if anyone who can't agree with all the zealots (impossible) must suffer a tongue lashing for sacrificing principle.
I'm not abandonning ship but at least I'm willing to admit that it's leaking.
How can somene only use free software if they don't know which software is free?
Sam
-----Original Message----- From: Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org Sent: 13 December 2008 20:45 To: Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com Cc: discussion@fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: What is free sftware really? Was: RE: Article: "Fixing linux" - opinions?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 08:01:40PM -0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
This discussion is why open source wins over free software.
This is a terrible way to frame the issue.
Free software is in reality too complicated.
Free software is a political movement, open source is a pragmatic method.
Comparing the two is quite absurd, and yet so very common.
The definition is simple-ish but not at all useful; because...
The definition has, and continues to be hugely useful for all manner of purposes!
Even it's devotees can't agree on whether or not common "free" software is really free, and (from time to time) seem to suggest that they are each a bunch of unprincipled compromisers ruining the whole campaign.
Freedom means different things to different people. This is natural. What you're essentially saying is that because freedom, morals, ethics, and value judgements are necessarily subjective we should abandon the whole lot. Unless we can quantify something objectively it has no value. Which is absurd.
If we can't tell (or agree) what free software means practically then we should not be surprised at the mix of software masquerading as "free" - whatever that means, and practically speaking this is /obviously/ not clear to ANYONE though we each might think it is clear to ourself.
Sure, there is confusion. That is no reason to abandon ship. We need to work better as a community to promote the issues and ideologies around free software instead of "giving up" and talking about the "open source linux os" or whatever.
Sam Liddicott wrote:
How can somene only use free software if they don't know which software is free?
Use a distribution which makes efforts to only include free software.
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions with explanations and reasoning here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
I am using gNewSense as well as Fedora, Debian and until-recently Ubuntu, on my personal machines.
Only free software is not there in every distro yet, but I am quietly confident that at least there people in the Fedora and Debian projects working to getting their distros on that list too.
2008/12/13 Matt Lee mattl@fsf.org:
Sam Liddicott wrote:
How can somene only use free software if they don't know which software is free?
Use a distribution which makes efforts to only include free software.
This immediately brings to mind the requirement for Vista certification for hardware manufacturers to appear to be putting in effort to do the mathematically impossible, as judged by a panel of MPAA member company representatives.
- d.