Re: Re: help!!!!!!!
Olivier Crouzet wrote:
>And do not confuse open-source software with free software!
>
>I would rather have a look at http://www.fsf.org than at opensource.org.
I'll be more careful next time as you got me on that :)
Actually, the FSF's definitions are good reading, especially when they
define free from "open-source" software. Kinda makes me think on the
philosophical side of "why free software." And why and HOW free software
is superior to open source software. And how free software benefits us
all (it promotes a healthy atmosphere of freedom and mutual cooperation).
The Halloween document part 1, on the other hand, gives a good comparison
(at accdg least to Microsoft) and overview re licensing issues and how
they categorize free from the subclasses of open source software. It's
quite a good eye-opener on what the competition thinks about the realm of
free and open source software - which MS brands as of the same camp.
Surprisingly, it is good reading to supplement the philosophy of free
software (despite referring from a memo from Microsoft corporation) and
somehow reinforces the readings of the Free Software Foundation.
btw, I'm well aware of their differences (FS & OSS), and I'm not confused
which is which. The GPL ensures that the freedoms offered by free software
cannot be impeded by other entities who'd wish to restrict the freedoms
they originally received (such as closing the source) when they distribute
it. There are even studies to prove that the GNU utilities are branded as of
superior quality compared to their close-sourced counterparts (and fortunately
for us, this is a reality rather than a mere claim).
Open source is quite a vague term (even in my native tongue, the coequivalent
of free is directly predefined and has only one term, while "open source" is
quite hackish to translate since it can be vaguely translated at all). I know
this is not all about FS - better check the site of the FSF and read the
philosophy section to know, use, develop, spread and imbibe them. OSS is
even splintered into subcamps (due to differences in the licenses they
employ) and the OSS movement is separate from FSF due to some conflicting
beliefs. Sure, FSF and the OSS Movement have some differences, but as their
philosophy states, they could work with each other on some common points.
Paolo Falcone
(What follows is way off topic...)
Nonetheless, I believe that software does follow Darwin's theory of evolution,
like how the better species outlast those that persist to prefer the old
order of things by adapting to the new trends. even human society evolved from
a system of repressive codes to more freedoms being gained and assured, and so
does software development. And so does free software will dominate in the
end...But, going further off topic, evolution, though it is gradual, involved wiping species that can't adapt off the face of the planet via periodic
extinctions (I must be reading a lot of National Geographic...). Even human
society is subject to this evolution: philosophical ideas were born out
gradually, but there was no visible change from the status quo without the
shedding of blood from revolutions of some sorts. Same was true with software.
Free software was there back in the 80's, but ever since when Linus Torvalds
released Linux under the GPL to the world, a revolution of some sorts happened
(and is happening) and now even big companies like SGI and IBM have at least
made some of their projects free software.
But with this revolution came a redefinition of what the economics of
software is and will be. The advent of Linux pushed free and open source
software to the limelight, and is forcing established companies to adapt new
solutions. Suddenly, selling of closed-source software wasn't as profitable
as before, and that the old notion of selling software has become second
to selling services. if traditional economics would be applied with free
and open source software, what results is a negative impact. the laws of the old order would make free software solutions seem to be like how we want
things to be cheap because then it can be as good as it can be, but it can't
be so cheap for investors wouldn't find any return of investment. However,'
all it takes is to redefine the economics to render services as the primary
selling point and lifeline of a company rather than concentrating on
their proprietary solutions. This is what is happening now with the
birth of the Internet age and the increasing popularity of Linux and free
and open source software solutioons. As said by the Free Software Foundation,
there is money in free software - and it comes through quality services by
a company.
We are now seeing the waning of the era of closed-source, proprietary solutions
and see further the light of freedom in free software. Those who cannot adopt
to the new order of things would someday be extinct. However, it's kinda
funny to think that free software would fade away. There might come a time
where it might decline someday, entities embracing free software go out of
business, but the software will persist, like ideas, science and philosophies
brought out in the open (the Pythagorean theorem would have not likely survived
if not one brought it out from Pythagoras' cult, philosophies would've not
prospered if no one took the time writing them then disseminate them openly,
nor science could've prospered if some nutcase scientist held the algorithm
or formula just for himself).
Anyway, forgive me for the long post. I won't do this again. This has no
place in a debian users' mailing list. sorry...
__________________________________
www.edsamail.com
Reply to: