Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on September 27, 2006 09:24 AM
While I don't appreciate the style by which some have commented on this post (curses and all) the poster unfortunately missed certain important points about Free Software and pretty much made the wrong comparison.
As mentioned, FSF doesn't promote freedom to use software only for certain purposes. It simply promotes having these four freedoms to begin with. It is another issue what will you use this freedom for. The only thing FSF would want to restrict is uses that restrict this actual freedom, but nothing else. Hence, to say that Open Source people don't care what their software is to be used for as a point of difference between them and Free Software people is pretty much void. The difference doesn't lie there because the same thing could be said for both camps.
The real difference is in the way the two camps view the issue of freedom, which is really the core issue behind the whole thing. Free Software people view it as a human right and its lack as a violation of this human right while Open Source people believe that lack of these freedoms can be justified by something they would call "freedom of choice", to choose whatever license you wish, no matter if it infringes upon someone's rights or not. In that sense the Open Source movement is apolitical and without consideration for ethical implications as paramount for certain choices. With such an attitude they simply tend to be too compromising which is exactly the danger that the Free Software camp fears because compromise in this case does weaken the cause.
It can even be hypocritical to call yourself a freedom supporter and yet accept freedom restricting terms for next software program you find so irresistible to use. Freedom fighters go all the way. They don't stop at the next offer of candies. Open Source people tend to compromise much more because it is not that much a matter of ethics for them as much as it is a matter of what ultimately makes better software. As such they indeed are more susceptible to suck up to corporate interests, be them evil or good.
I am not, as the original poster, claiming all corporations are evil. I believe in good business. I just don't believe in business that is based on stripping people of their basic rights and I consider four freedoms propagated by the FSF to be basic human rights as applied to the use of digital technology - it comes down to being the master of your *own* property, your computer and copies of software you made or payed for.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Open Source vs Free Software
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 27, 2006 09:24 AMAs mentioned, FSF doesn't promote freedom to use software only for certain purposes. It simply promotes having these four freedoms to begin with. It is another issue what will you use this freedom for. The only thing FSF would want to restrict is uses that restrict this actual freedom, but nothing else. Hence, to say that Open Source people don't care what their software is to be used for as a point of difference between them and Free Software people is pretty much void. The difference doesn't lie there because the same thing could be said for both camps.
The real difference is in the way the two camps view the issue of freedom, which is really the core issue behind the whole thing. Free Software people view it as a human right and its lack as a violation of this human right while Open Source people believe that lack of these freedoms can be justified by something they would call "freedom of choice", to choose whatever license you wish, no matter if it infringes upon someone's rights or not. In that sense the Open Source movement is apolitical and without consideration for ethical implications as paramount for certain choices. With such an attitude they simply tend to be too compromising which is exactly the danger that the Free Software camp fears because compromise in this case does weaken the cause.
It can even be hypocritical to call yourself a freedom supporter and yet accept freedom restricting terms for next software program you find so irresistible to use. Freedom fighters go all the way. They don't stop at the next offer of candies. Open Source people tend to compromise much more because it is not that much a matter of ethics for them as much as it is a matter of what ultimately makes better software. As such they indeed are more susceptible to suck up to corporate interests, be them evil or good.
I am not, as the original poster, claiming all corporations are evil. I believe in good business. I just don't believe in business that is based on stripping people of their basic rights and I consider four freedoms propagated by the FSF to be basic human rights as applied to the use of digital technology - it comes down to being the master of your *own* property, your computer and copies of software you made or payed for.
Thank you
Danijel Orsolic
#