Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 122 posts

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#61

Post by brudgers »

mkr-hn wrote: post #42
brudgers wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "How about GCC or LLVM?" I assume that unlike the inhabitants of your ideal world and myself, you are a professional programmer. Why would I run LLVM or GCC instead of Visual Studio Express Edition or program in C rather than utilize a .NET language given that neither really supports Windows in the first place? For me, free OS's aren't an option. They don't offer the tools I use to practice my profession. To the de…

There's a wealth of books on open source development tools and languages. You can even find them at B&M bookstores.

The volume of books on open source tools is more a function of the number of such tools. For any given tool or language, there may be very few books in print.

Amazon has 12 books for "LLVM". [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dst...]

There are over 1500 for "Visual Studio" [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dst...]

343 books for "Django" [includes the musician] v. 1548 for "asp.net" [includes fibers woven for catching venomous vipers]

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#62

Post by mkr-hn »

brudgers wrote: post #61
mkr-hn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a wealth of books on open source development tools and languages. You can even find them at B&M bookstores.

The volume of books on open source tools is more a function of the number of such tools. For any given tool or language, there may be very few books in print. Amazon has 12 books for "LLVM". [ http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dst... ] There are over 1500 for "Visual Studio" [ http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dst... ] 343 books for "Django" [includes the musician] v. 154…

What does the volume of books have to do with anything? You seemed to indicate that you didn't think books were available for open source tools, but they do exist. What exactly are you looking for that isn't available?

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#63

Post by mvalle »

billswift wrote: post #35
EGreg wrote: post #20

If they only called it Liberating Software, they wouldn't have had this happen. After all, open source software is also free (as in, costs nothing). But liberating software sounds like it confers freedom on the person -- actually liberating them. Remember, branding is important.

Open source (as in BSD, MIT, WTFPL) are more liberating than "Free Software" (GPL). They greatly enlarge your opportunities in how you use the software.

Free Software is defined as software released under a license that follows the definition of Free Software ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ).

BSD, MIT and WTFPL are all on the list of officially verified Free Software licenses: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html and are thus "Free Software".

Open Source, similarly, is defined as software released under a license that follows the definition of Open Source Software ( http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd ). The OSI also has a list of approved licenses: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#64

Post by SwellJoe »

dwc wrote: post #53
SwellJoe wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of my comment was that I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer. Not that they must be a developer. No one, especially me, has suggested that anyone must do anything. We're talking about freedom here; and I'd like it if users had the same freedoms I've enjoyed over the past couple of decades. That includes having source available for a large percentage of the software I used, so I that I…

Ah, there's "freedom" again, considered only from one perspective. What about the freedom of someone to make their own work available as closed source? What about when it's a derived work that adds novel new functionality? The FSF is against the freedom to do this, because it promotes other freedoms they like better. What if my important set of freedoms isn't a perfect fit with theirs? What if some random users' impo…

No one is saying you must do anything. No one is demanding you to release your software under an open or free software license.

I'm simply saying I would like for a culture of learning and sharing to remain strong and vibrant going forward. You're making this into an ideological flame war, without reason. I haven't demanded anything of you or the software you create. I have suggested that a vibrant and thriving open source or free software community is a good thing.

As I mentioned in my first comment, I'm not speaking specifically of the GPL. I happen to like the license, but if you don't, that's fine. I have, nowhere in this conversation, suggested that only the GPL allows the kind of freedom I'm speaking of.

The freedom I am speaking of is about building a culture of being able to look at, learn from, modify, and contribute to, the software I (and others) use. And, nowhere have I suggested that only the GPL makes that possible; though I do think RMS and the FSF (and, yes, the GPL) deserve some credit for building the culture we currently enjoy.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#65

Post by adolfojp »

EGreg wrote: post #20

If they only called it Liberating Software, they wouldn't have had this happen. After all, open source software is also free (as in, costs nothing). But liberating software sounds like it confers freedom on the person -- actually liberating them. Remember, branding is important.

I vote for Freedom Software. It has a nice ring to it and it removes the ambiguity.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#68

Post by prodigal_erik »

btilly wrote: post #17

Free software offers the end user benefits that the end user only rarely understands or appreciates. Open source offers developers benefits that lots of developers understand and appreciate. Therefore open source is a much better marketing tactic. (Which is exactly what it was designed to be.)

Anyone who's ever taken their car to an independent mechanic (rather than back to the dealer) ought to understand a key end user benefit of free software: you aren't limited by the interests of its creator. I'm confused that nobody seems to get this.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#69

Post by brudgers »

SwellJoe wrote: post #39
dwc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but not this time. If that sentence were dropped, the remaining text would be more clear and accurate. That sentence is not true. Why should a user be a developer in an ideal world? Why should one be required to be a developer to utilize software? It's not even a world that anyone really wants to move toward. The whole idea is very developer-centric, and doesn't represent an enlightened user perspective.

The point of my comment was that I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer. Not that they must be a developer. No one, especially me, has suggested that anyone must do anything. We're talking about freedom here; and I'd like it if users had the same freedoms I've enjoyed over the past couple of decades. That includes having source available for a large percentage of the software I used, so I that I…

>"I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer."

People have that freedom now.

Having the sort access to the source code of a large percentage of the software one uses is not a necessary condition for becoming a software developer nor for learning programming. I suspect that most people first learned programming starting with trivial problems or by typing in examples.

Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software

#70

Post by brudgers »

SwellJoe wrote: post #6
aniket_ray wrote: post #3

I'm not a big fan on GPL anymore. When I create some software I prefer the user of my software to have all freedoms including the freedom to embed it in closed source software.

And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. Amazing how people can have different priorities and different beliefs. (And, amazing how one can abuse the word "free" or "open" in either case to mean two very different things.)

>"I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL."

There are other licenses which will insure that your software remains free and open. GPL requires that mine become free and open as well...and that's fine in so far as it goes.

Structurally, however, the copyleft movement only works so long as there is a system of copyright protections, powerful institutions for enforcing them, and the threat of severe sanctions for violating them. In other words, the copyleft movement is built on the same foundation as its antithesis. Both copyright and copyleft depend on the author's right to restrict future use.

Post reply on HN