4 ms·

No doubt many people here are already aware of Richard Stallman and his views about open source software, but needless to say his perspective is the beginning,

No doubt many people here are already aware of Richard Stallman and his views about open source software, but needless to say his perspective is the beginning, not the end, of a discussion. It's just wrong to say that that "there is no FOSS" as if you were correcting someone's spelling mistake. The debate about the direction of open source/Libre software is too important to be treated in the way you chose for your post.

KGIII 9y ago
Slight addition to your post, RMS isn't really the beginner of free software. He did start GNU, but the idea of free software existed long before him. He is the most well known vocal proponent, of course. He has done much for the movement and this isn't meant to denigrate him. It's just that there was free software proponents before him and he's just the famous one. I'm sure Wikipedia has an article on the history of free software. It should go back at least as far as SHARE, from the 1950s, as I recall. Again, this isn't meant to denigrate RMS, or his work. He's a nice enough fellow. In fact, we went to school together. This is just a bit of a lead for those who wish to look deeper. Actually, I'll get you a link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_software https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_software
- pessimizer 9y ago
  He is the beginner of "Free Software," which is a term he defined. He isn't the first person who let people look at source code, allowed people to freely use and remix a particular piece of source code, or who didn't charge for software.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    The turn of phrase is something you can attribute to him, if you want. He's done great things, but he's not really the beginning. I was addressing that part of the statement.
carapace 9y ago
I want to get a t-shirt that says in block letters, "STALLMAN IS CORRECT". Scolding on tone aside, the comment by RomanPushkin is also correct: > FYI, there is no FOSS -- that expression is a misunderstanding. There is the free (libre) software movement, and there is the open source non-movement: two different viewpoints based on different values. This is very much the literal truth at least in my little world. Stallman's vision and response (the GNU license/weapon) are very much the "alpha and omega" of Free Software. In contrast, the entire "Open Source" non-movement either doesn't get it or doesn't care. From the POV of a free software true believer (Hello there!) there is no point to Open Source.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "From the POV of a free software true believer (Hello there!) there is no point to Open Source." The key differentiator between open source and free software is ideological. If you value ideology over pragmatism, then I'd see your point, otherwise it's kind of a misguided statement. There's nothing in the ideals of free software that prevents what the Caddy authors have done. Stallman has made it clear time and time again that the 'free' in free software is a matter of liberty rather than price. The freedom to charge money for free software has been made very clear to anyone paying attention. Here's an article from the GNU Project website about selling free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
  - craigsmansion 9y ago
    You are correct that the key differentiator between the two is philosophical, but > If you value ideology over pragmatism That laden false dichotomy died a long time ago. At best, one can speak of "short term pragmatism" vs "long term pragmatism".
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "That laden false dichotomy died a long time ago. At best, one can speak of "short term pragmatism" vs "long term pragmatism"." In general yes, but not in this case. There's very little practical difference between free software and open source. Both have access to source code and freedom to distribute/modify/use that source code at their core. For the most part, the rules built up around open source and free software only have a practical impact on how it interacts with non-free software. So for example, having binary blobs in the Linux kernel. Note that whilst the Linux kernel is GPL2, it's still run as an open source project. Regardless of whether a project uses a free software licence, it's the ideological approach to non-free software that splits free software and open source. You could argue that binary blobs in the Linux kernel are a case that can't be described as long term pragmatism, but what's the alternative? That the device without a free driver goes unused until it has one. It could be argued that the existence of binary-only driver releases hold back the long term goals of free software if they take away the desire to write free software drivers, but we can see that people still want free software drivers regardless. Nouveau is a good example, it's a project that's been going for years with almost nonexistent assistance from NVIDIA, and has never matched the performance of the closed source NVIDIA drivers, but people still continue developing it despite the obstacles, and people continue using it despite the lower performance. If short term pragmatism damaged long term pragmatism then projects like Nouveau most likely wouldn't exist, as it's hard to argue against the fact that the NVIDIA closed-source drivers are the superior choice in the short term.

KGIII 9y ago

Slight addition to your post, RMS isn't really the beginner of free software. He did start GNU, but the idea of free software existed long before him. He is the most well known vocal proponent, of course. He has done much for the movement and this isn't meant to denigrate him. It's just that there was free software proponents before him and he's just the famous one. I'm sure Wikipedia has an article on the history of free software. It should go back at least as far as SHARE, from the 1950s, as I recall. Again, this isn't meant to denigrate RMS, or his work. He's a nice enough fellow. In fact, we went to school together. This is just a bit of a lead for those who wish to look deeper. Actually, I'll get you a link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_software https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_software

pessimizer 9y ago
He is the beginner of "Free Software," which is a term he defined. He isn't the first person who let people look at source code, allowed people to freely use and remix a particular piece of source code, or who didn't charge for software.
- KGIII 9y ago
  The turn of phrase is something you can attribute to him, if you want. He's done great things, but he's not really the beginning. I was addressing that part of the statement.

carapace 9y ago

I want to get a t-shirt that says in block letters, "STALLMAN IS CORRECT". Scolding on tone aside, the comment by RomanPushkin is also correct: > FYI, there is no FOSS -- that expression is a misunderstanding. There is the free (libre) software movement, and there is the open source non-movement: two different viewpoints based on different values. This is very much the literal truth at least in my little world. Stallman's vision and response (the GNU license/weapon) are very much the "alpha and omega" of Free Software. In contrast, the entire "Open Source" non-movement either doesn't get it or doesn't care. From the POV of a free software true believer (Hello there!) there is no point to Open Source.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "From the POV of a free software true believer (Hello there!) there is no point to Open Source." The key differentiator between open source and free software is ideological. If you value ideology over pragmatism, then I'd see your point, otherwise it's kind of a misguided statement. There's nothing in the ideals of free software that prevents what the Caddy authors have done. Stallman has made it clear time and time again that the 'free' in free software is a matter of liberty rather than price. The freedom to charge money for free software has been made very clear to anyone paying attention. Here's an article from the GNU Project website about selling free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- craigsmansion 9y ago
  You are correct that the key differentiator between the two is philosophical, but > If you value ideology over pragmatism That laden false dichotomy died a long time ago. At best, one can speak of "short term pragmatism" vs "long term pragmatism".
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "That laden false dichotomy died a long time ago. At best, one can speak of "short term pragmatism" vs "long term pragmatism"." In general yes, but not in this case. There's very little practical difference between free software and open source. Both have access to source code and freedom to distribute/modify/use that source code at their core. For the most part, the rules built up around open source and free software only have a practical impact on how it interacts with non-free software. So for example, having binary blobs in the Linux kernel. Note that whilst the Linux kernel is GPL2, it's still run as an open source project. Regardless of whether a project uses a free software licence, it's the ideological approach to non-free software that splits free software and open source. You could argue that binary blobs in the Linux kernel are a case that can't be described as long term pragmatism, but what's the alternative? That the device without a free driver goes unused until it has one. It could be argued that the existence of binary-only driver releases hold back the long term goals of free software if they take away the desire to write free software drivers, but we can see that people still want free software drivers regardless. Nouveau is a good example, it's a project that's been going for years with almost nonexistent assistance from NVIDIA, and has never matched the performance of the closed source NVIDIA drivers, but people still continue developing it despite the obstacles, and people continue using it despite the lower performance. If short term pragmatism damaged long term pragmatism then projects like Nouveau most likely wouldn't exist, as it's hard to argue against the fact that the NVIDIA closed-source drivers are the superior choice in the short term.