Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 18, 2003 04:21 AM
I'm not a big Stallman fan, but let me take a crack at your list.
1. The Open Source movement, if construed as distinct from the Free SW movement, is a lot stronger than the Free SW movement.
This is debateable. GNU/Linux, Perl, and GNOME are free software products, backed by the FSF's enforcement of the source-available license provisions.
2. "Open Source" gives a more complete understanding of the topic in English than does "Free Software" without adding a lot of cumbersome explanation.
Agreed, the term "open source" is easier to understand.
3. The "ideological differences" between the "Open Source" and "Free Software" movements, when they are not merely verbal, either make no practical difference or GNU's position is so extreme as to be generally considered laughable.
Neither is correct. If Linux had been published under a BSD-style open source license, then Microsoft (for example) could announce tomorrow that they have Media Player and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET running on top of a "specially modified" Linux kernel (sorry, source not available) - and it's being shipped with some great new desktops and laptops from HP. Why not try Linux and get the best of Microsoft's application expertise, too! (In case this sounds farfetched, look at what Apple has done with FreeBSD). As far as being extreme, Linus himself has said that adopting the GPL was the single smartest move he made (well, besides not using a Minix-style microkernel architecture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:V)
4. People who are willing to call it "Open Source" also tend to be less stuck-up and rude as well as easier to work with.
That would depend on personal experience. I don't know any of the well-known developers personally, but it seems there is no shortage of egos and prickly personalities (as is the case with engineering in general).
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Is it called GNU/Crybaby?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2003 04:21 AM1. The Open Source movement, if construed as distinct from the Free SW movement, is a lot stronger than the Free SW movement.
This is debateable. GNU/Linux, Perl, and GNOME are free software products, backed by the FSF's enforcement of the source-available license provisions.
2. "Open Source" gives a more complete understanding of the topic in English than does "Free Software" without adding a lot of cumbersome explanation.
Agreed, the term "open source" is easier to understand.
3. The "ideological differences" between the "Open Source" and "Free Software" movements, when they are not merely verbal, either make no practical difference or GNU's position is so extreme as to be generally considered laughable.
Neither is correct. If Linux had been published under a BSD-style open source license, then Microsoft (for example) could announce tomorrow that they have Media Player and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET running on top of a "specially modified" Linux kernel (sorry, source not available) - and it's being shipped with some great new desktops and laptops from HP. Why not try Linux and get the best of Microsoft's application expertise, too! (In case this sounds farfetched, look at what Apple has done with FreeBSD). As far as being extreme, Linus himself has said that adopting the GPL was the single smartest move he made (well, besides not using a Minix-style microkernel architecture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:V)
4. People who are willing to call it "Open Source" also tend to be less stuck-up and rude as well as easier to work with.
That would depend on personal experience. I don't know any of the well-known developers personally, but it seems there is no shortage of egos and prickly personalities (as is the case with engineering in general).
#