Re: It's time to talk about Free Software
What on earth are you talking about the OSD == the DFSG at this pouint, and
I have seen no substantiated instances of ESR calling something Open Source
that we would not agree is DFSG free.
I dislike the term open source as much as you, but you're jumping at shadows.
Daniel Martin wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > I think it's time to abandon the Open Source, Eric can HAVE it. We need
> > > to wake up those of the community that have a clue and dig in for what's
> > > going to be a very long night.
> > I don't agree: as long as Eric does not own the Open Source-trademark we
> > can do some damage-control.
> > Wichert.
> I would contend that we can also do damage control without keeping the
> Open Source trademark. Namely, by publically declaring "Open Source
> software is not necessarily free software, some examples are ...; we
> dispute strongly the claim that OSS gains the same advantages of free
> software - OSS success stories should be scrutinized carefully, to see
> if the success is really a matter of the software in question being
> free, not merely Open Source."
> Or something like that.
> However, what can we do by holding onto the trademark? Veto ESR's
> judgement about what qualifies as Open Source, thus starting a huge
> flamewar in which it appears that SPI is out to get ESR and the whole
> Open Source movement? Villify Debian in the eyes of the suits which
> ESR has courted? Even worse, convince business-people that their
> worst fears about free software are true - that free licenses breed
> dissent and balkanization? I remember when MS execs were asked for
> comment on Netscape releasing Mozilla as free software one notorious
> quote ran along the lines: "I don't see why they're destroying their
> product in this manner. In a year or two there will be dozens of
> competing, incompatible versions of Navigator out there - it'll be a
> complete mess and will be easy for internet explorer to move in and
> clean up." This view probably does not stop at Redmond city limits;
> suits are predisposed to see freeing their software as the first step
> on the road to chaos (in which there is no consistent profit), and we
> don't really want to encourage that view.
> What we would really like - that ESR's writings which tout (sp?) the
> benefits of Open Source software be reworked to explicitly tout the
> benefits of free software - is not something we can make happen by
> controlling the Open Source trademark; certainly this will never
> happen if we use our control of what ESR has reason to consider his
> (under the property model described in "Homesteading the Noosphere")
> in such a way as to make him look foolish. (say, by denying Open
> Source certification to some license ESR has approved)
> In short, yes, it is likely that if we give up control of the Open
> Source trademark it will be abused by people who want to gain the
> benefits of the labeling without really taking the scary step of
> freeing their software. However, I don't want to deal with it. If we
> retain control of the mark, then we will eventually be confronted with
> a choice: either bless (contrary to, I believe, the ideals of many
> folks here) software that's non-free as Open Source, or overrule ESR
> and company. Neither action is one I'd like to see SPI take.
> I propose we give up the mark with a public statement something like
> "SPI's mission is to serve various free software [link to RMS's
> explanation of the term] projects by doing all of the legal things
> that the actual project members no longer wish to do. For some time
> now, SPI has held the trademark to the term Open Source, allowing ESR
> of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to administer it, under the
> assumption that Open Source was simply another name for free software.
> However, it has become apparent that while all free software is Open
> Source, not all software which has been or is likely to be awarded
> Open Source certification by OSI is free [again link to RMS's
> definition?]. Therefore, it is the opinion of SPI that OSI is no
> longer a free software project. Rather than cause the factious
> confusion that would ensue if SPI were to simply revoke ESR's right to
> administer the trademark, SPI has decided to transfer ownership of the
> Open Source trademark to OSI. SPI would like to thank ESR and all the
> present and former members of OSI who have made the Open Source
> trademark something of value to the business community and have
> thereby helped to image the image of free software as well. However,
> we feel that we cannot be a party to promoting software which, while
> it may be granted Open Source certification, is not free."
> I suggest links to RMS's definition rather than the DFSG because in
> this statement I feel that the "why" of free software (that is, why
> the DFSG are written the way they are) is more important than the
> "what" (that is, the DFSG or other similar laundry lists).
> Perhaps preface this statement with something that says "below, when
> we say free software, we refer not to monetary cost but to the freedom
> of the end user" or some such explanation, for those who get the
> announcement via media which do not support hyperlinks.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
see shy jo