3 ms·
In the last millenium I had a few emails trading with the author. The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. Can
by iuguy 16y ago
In the last millenium I had a few emails trading with the author. The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. Canonical don't conform to this definition of Free, instead they have something different, that probably works better for them.
In a previous life I worked at an Open Source company and we had to put up with zealotry on a daily basis, both externally and internally. On the one hand the FSF see themselves as guardians of the Free Software Movement - a mantle nobody else seems to want to take up. On the other hand, sometimes they act like douches. This is one such time in which the douche element of the FSF comes up for air (in my opinion, and yours may differ, there doesn't appear to be a clear right of wrong).
Canonical own Ubuntu. It's up to them to run it the way they want to. If they want copyright assignment under their terms, that's their choice, not the FSF's. If they don't like it they can always fork it, but of course their fork won't be nearly as popular. This implies that Kuhn wants to have his cake and eat it, or at least eat Canonical's cake and tell them how to mix the ingredients.
- jdub 16y agoCanonical do not own "Ubuntu" (that is, a combination of lots of other people's software). They do not require copyright assignment for every component of Ubuntu (because they don't own it). They require copyright assignment for a few of their own projects... which, yes, is entirely their prerogative. BUT: There are plenty of people in the FLOSS community who don't believe that's an optimal way to participate... and I'd point out that those people include FSF ("software freedom") folks, people who once also had copyright assignment policies, projects that have suffered from copyright assignment policies, etc. It's not just an FSF my-way-or-the-highway issue.
- cabalamat 16y ago> The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. Canonical don't conform to this definition of Free, instead they have something different, that probably works better for them. The FSF have a Free Software Definition; similarly the OSF have an Open Source Definition. This is good, because it means that when someone says "free software" or "open source", we can all agree on what these terms mean.
- DisposaBoy 16y agoI don't think that is the reality at all, unfortunately. The terms are used interchangably all the time. There's also FOSS which seems to merge them. The same seems to be happening with OS and FS as philosophies in that most? people seem to see them as the same thing.
- cabalamat 16y ago> I don't think that is the reality at all, unfortunately. If someone describes something as "free software" and it doesn't satisfy the FSF's definition of the term, I'd regard them as dishonest. Ditto with "open source". > The terms are used interchangably all the time. For practical purposes, I think FSD == OSD. > The same seems to be happening with OS and FS as philosophies in that most? people seem to see them as the same thing. Well they are. The software stack I'm using to write this with includes Linux/X/Gnome/Firefox, all of which are both free software and open source.
- masklinn 16y ago> The FSF take the view that there is one definition of Free: It's their way or the highway. No. The FSF takes the view that there is one definition of Free Software. Considering it's a concept invented by its creator and one the FSF was specifically created to defend, I don't see how they could be wrong. > On the one hand the FSF see themselves as guardians of the Free Software Movement Because they are, that's very specifically what the FSF was created for.
- bad_user 16y agoWell, that's why "open source" was coined in the first place, because many people or companies releasing software under an open-source license feel uncomfortable about associating their software with any political agenda.