4 ms·

> ""Open Source" at best weakens this tool, and as we've seen today, spreads confusion." How does it spread confusion? How does it weaken free software? Open s

> ""Open Source" at best weakens this tool, and as we've seen today, spreads confusion." How does it spread confusion? How does it weaken free software? Open source and free software are just two different approaches to collaborative software development. There's no confusion in my mind about the benefits they both offer. As for the GPL as a weapon, there's a reason why GPL is falling out of favour. If open source did not exist, most companies simply wouldn't bother sharing source code. How would that help you?

carapace 9y ago
> Open source and free software are just two different approaches to collaborative software development. That is the confusion. They are not. The fact that you think so is exactly the confusion I'm complaining about. GPL is a fire extinguisher, "Open Source" is a bottle of seltzer water, they are not two different approaches to fire-fighting. It doesn't matter to me how many companies choose to be on fire I still do not want to burn with them.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "That is the confusion. They are not. The fact that you think so is exactly the confusion I'm complaining about." It seems to me that your general argument appears to be based on the GPL being hostile to companies by design. Is that a fair summary?
  - carapace 9y ago
    No. That's not correct at all. I am pro-business. I like capitalism (as an API not an ideology.) If I thought the GPL was "hostile" to making a buck I wouldn't advocate it. A business model based on providing software and keeping it secret is fundamentally anti-social and stupid. This is even before we encounter things like cars that lie about their emissions, still at the stage where you can't repair your own tractor.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      Okay, so what is your argument? What makes free software a 'fire extinguisher' and open source a 'bottle of seltzer water'? The only arguments you've made to separate them so far are... "RMS designed the GPL as a weapon against these people." ""Open Source" at best weakens this tool" Weakens in what way?
      - carapace 9y ago
        https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... If you are really curious and want to know more it's there. I'm out.
        ZenoArrow 9y ago
        I said... > "The key differentiator between open source and free software is ideological." You said... > "I very much disagree." You then explain your position with a link that says... > "The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software." In other words, you link to an article that spells out in plain English that the difference is ideological. The approach to software is almost the same, but the reasons behind it differ. That's an ideological difference.

carapace 9y ago

> Open source and free software are just two different approaches to collaborative software development. That is the confusion. They are not. The fact that you think so is exactly the confusion I'm complaining about. GPL is a fire extinguisher, "Open Source" is a bottle of seltzer water, they are not two different approaches to fire-fighting. It doesn't matter to me how many companies choose to be on fire I still do not want to burn with them.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "That is the confusion. They are not. The fact that you think so is exactly the confusion I'm complaining about." It seems to me that your general argument appears to be based on the GPL being hostile to companies by design. Is that a fair summary?
- carapace 9y ago
  No. That's not correct at all. I am pro-business. I like capitalism (as an API not an ideology.) If I thought the GPL was "hostile" to making a buck I wouldn't advocate it. A business model based on providing software and keeping it secret is fundamentally anti-social and stupid. This is even before we encounter things like cars that lie about their emissions, still at the stage where you can't repair your own tractor.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    Okay, so what is your argument? What makes free software a 'fire extinguisher' and open source a 'bottle of seltzer water'? The only arguments you've made to separate them so far are... "RMS designed the GPL as a weapon against these people." ""Open Source" at best weakens this tool" Weakens in what way?
    - carapace 9y ago
      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... If you are really curious and want to know more it's there. I'm out.
      - ZenoArrow 9y ago
        I said... > "The key differentiator between open source and free software is ideological." You said... > "I very much disagree." You then explain your position with a link that says... > "The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software." In other words, you link to an article that spells out in plain English that the difference is ideological. The approach to software is almost the same, but the reasons behind it differ. That's an ideological difference.