Returning to Trisquel
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
After trying Debian, Mint (again) and Fedora, I'm returning to Trisquel.
I'm not a hardcore free-software user, and I give a lot of more value to functionality and security than to (what Richard Stallman and you call) freedom. But I think Trisquel is a great distro, and it gives me what I look for.
Well I think that is misleading is not freedom. It is "free software" because the software Respect's my freedom.
A subtle yet important different. Is not that my freedom is in the operative system or the programs I use. Instead, the software respects my freedom as opossed to proprietary software, that doesn't.
This idea is so good that there are many around the world that use the free software concept. Companies as big as Microsoft or Google, even Apple.
They all had developed free software, used free software licenses or used the term "freedom", granted they don't do it much, but the point is that this ideas are not crazy and not only used by RMS, but by many.
Hence, we con appreciate that the terms are correct and not " so called".
Hi, albertoefg.
"Freedom" is a term in dispute, and not univocal. In fact, a lot people would say that Microsoft, Google and Apple don't develope free software, but open source software.
>"Freedom" is a term in dispute, and not univocal.
Who's disputing it? I've never seen 'libre software', or 'free software' when used in the same sense, used to refer to anything other than software which satisfies the 'four software freedoms'. Certainly there is some variation- most notably in preventing reference to proprietary software within a program- but not large amounts. By any reasonable definition, the concept is 'univocal'.
Of course, if you mean 'freedom' in a more general sense, then there is definitely dispute. However, that is separate from the case for software.
>A lot people would say that Microsoft, Google and Apple >don't develope free software, but open source software.
With the exception of Microsoft, that assumption is unjustified. Certainly, numerous people would (correctly, I believe) assert those companies belong to the open source *camp*, not the free software one, and also that they have participated in the development of proprietary programs of significant detriment to the free software community. However, that does not make their software non-free.
Both Google's 'Go' and Apple's 'Swift' have compilers which are 100% free software. Even though both compilers are as thoroughly open-source(y) as their parent companies, *they nonetheless satisfy the conditions for freedom*. Hence, regardless of the disgustingly anti-freedom stances of their main developers, they are still free.
In the case of Microsoft, though, it may indeed be the case that their 'open-source' software is not free; the freedom to publish modified copies is missing if I remember correctly. However, this does not affect the point that large companies are writing free software.
>a lot people would say that Microsoft, Google and Apple don't develope free software, but open source software.
This is a clear misunderstood of what open source is.
Open Source also cares about freedom. And about sharing the software. In fact they recommend and approve the same licenses that the Free Software Foundation.
The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative - https://opensource.org/osd
As you can read, there are many points in common with the free software definition.
Many like to think that "Open Source" is a middle point between Free Software and Proprietary software.
This is wrong. They care about the same problems and they recommended the same licenses and some software, they just use a different approach, the Open Source Initiative has a more pragmatic approach towards the problem, while the Free Software Foundation has a more idealistic one.
But open source and free software are in practice a fight for freedom of the users:
We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific projects. We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
Saying "open source" is not a permission on proprietary software, because open source is against that.
Both open source and free software supporters care about freedom and are against proprietary software.
Some people doesn't know this and tend to use the term "open source" as a way to feel good about using proprietary software. But this is wrong and against the Open Source philosophy.
Open Source also cares about freedom. (...) Saying "open source" is not a permission on proprietary software, because open source is against that.
That is not true. The term "open source" was coined in reaction to the free software philosophy, to *not* talk about freedoms and to *not* criticize proprietary software developers. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html (especially the she section "Fear of Freedom") explains it well. Stallman being the author of that text, you may believe that it is biased. It is not: it is what really happened and "open source" proponents do not say otherwise. Read http://producingoss.com/en/introduction.html#free-vs-open-source (a section in the book "Producing Open Source Software"), for instance.
There is a difference between Open Source Ideas and Open Source promoters...
And my principal point is not what Open Source promoters do but in what means for something to be Open Source and, as I said, Open Source software is not software in the middle of proprietary and libre software, it is Libre Software, there is no such thing as "open source software", and I think that the hard effort in distinguish Open Source and Free Software is hurting more than helping, because many like to believe " hey free software is too radical for me, I will use open source software" when in reality they are simply using free software.
There is no such thing. They are using Libre Software and the Open Source philosophy is against proprietary software.
Many who later adopted the term "open source" broadly shared the ideological perspective of the FSF but had some disagreements over strategy and rhetoric. Today some people use both terms, choosing according to context and audience.
https://opensource.org/faq#free-software
So I think that telling people than "Open Source is being ok with both proprietary and free software" is simply wrong and is doing more damage than helping.
Is giving people the feeling that they can say open source and use windows.
Open Source was just a different way of promoting Free Software.
The term "free software" is older, and is reflected in the name of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), an organization founded in 1985 to protect and promote free software. The term "open source" was coined by Christine Peterson and adopted in 1998 by the founders of the Open Source Initiative. Like the FSF, the OSI's founders supported the development and distribution of free software, but they disagreed with the FSF about how to promote it, believing that software freedom was primarily a practical issue rather than an ideological one
I don't agree with calling Free Software "open source" and I care about freedom but I think that by making others believe that open source is OK with proprietary software is hurting more in the long run.
We should tell the truth: Open Source is againt proprietary software, but it is better to use the term Free Software or Software Libre, because it is more meaningful and cares more about the user than the developer.
You're confused. Open source is a development methodology, nothing more -- while Free Libre Movement is a political and social ideology. Take your sides and stop diluting the message.
I am not confused. I read and educate myself.
I don't just repeat RMS ideas.
Open Source is not *just* a methodology.
I don't agree with open source, but that doesn't mean I will say that Open Source is something is not.
And Open Source is not ok with proprietary software and is not a middle point of Free Software and Proprietary.
Stallman's phraseology in this regard is superb and there's no reason to rephrase the question. I certainly don't know how to improve on his article, so I don't see why I shouldn't just point to what he has to say on the subject.
He agrees with me though.
He clearly makes a distinction on what open source actually is and what people say and think it is:
From your same article:
The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.
However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.
Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.
Clearly there is a difference on what open source means and what people that promote it do.
But that doesn't mean Open Source is bad per se. What is bad is the way people act. But Open Source is not OK with proprietary software. Even if the promoters are.
>Clearly there is a difference on what open source means and
>what people that promote it do.
It may be worth asking whether such a distinction can be created, though. The OSI is certainly perfectly within their rights to define the term as they wish, and even request others use the term in the same way; however, they are just as entitled to declare their belief that the word 'nice' should revert to its original meaning of 'ignorant'. Does that change the definition of the word in general?
>But that doesn't mean Open Source is bad per se.
Indeed.
>But Open Source is not OK with proprietary software.
This is definitely true, working from the OSI definition, but the meaning 'not OK' in regards to proprietary software seems to differ from that for free software- perhaps, even, to the point of this difference being the basis of the free vs. open source divide. Open source seems to be more concerned with the wasted effort and cost (direct and indirect) of proprietary software. Free software, by contrast, seems to hinge on how it removes the rights of the individual.
I agree with your "principal point". But I am among the people that say "Open Source is being ok with both proprietary and free software". You will not find any condemnation of proprietary software development in the name of "open source", whereas articles on https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ keep on pointing out how proprietary programs are unjust because the developers ends up exercising power over the users, dividing them, often abusing them (https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/ lists around 300 instances of malicious functionalities), etc. There are many famous examples of "open source" proponents actually defending the use of proprietary software (e.g., Linus Torvalds imposing BitKeeper to develop Linux from 2002 to 2005, accepting proprietary firmware, etc.). And, again, the term "open source" was coined to *not* talk about freedoms and to *not* criticize proprietary software developers. Have you read http://producingoss.com/en/introduction.html#free-vs-open-source that I pointed to you and that is written by the open source camp?
Thanks for that Magic Banana ;-)
definatly a very good site well worth the read http://producingoss.com/en/introduction.html#free-vs-open-source
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios