Hello Sylvain, Today I was reading news.ycombinator.com and found your website: https://www.kerkour.fr/blog/bloom-a-free-and-open-source-google/ https://www.k

Hello Sylvain, Today I was reading news.ycombinator.com and found your website: https://www.kerkour.fr/blog/bloom-a-free-and-open-source-google/ https://www.kerkour.fr/blog/bloom-a-free-and-open-source-goo... You may consider me free software supporter since 1999. That is how long I am using GNU operating systems with Linux kernel. I am business consultant too, helping people to startup in business. Let me give you few comments on your website: Congratulation on publishing software under the GNU Affero Public license. > Bloom: a free and open source Google Please note that "Google" is a trademark. While Google will not react that fast, you should. As you are using the trademark to promote your own services, be it free software or not, that is really wrong approach. > The social crisis I agree there are social crisis situation in the world. But I don't agree in generalities and presentation that is making it general. As it is not. There are many areas in the world where people do not have social crisis. You would not be able to convince them. > How is the world's wealth shared among its > population? Well let me say that "world" does not own any wealth. Your statement is deceptive, and I even don't see why that type of politics shall be involved with the software that you so nicely published under the Affero GNU Public License. Don't give people politics, if you are providing software that everybody can use. That is incompatible. Make one separate page for your world's wealth politics. World does not "own" wealth. You are mistaken. It is owned by private individuals and corporations that in turn also belong to private individuals, some of them being non-profit corporations that are now owned by any particular person. Wealth is not "shared" because "world" does not share "wealth". Wealth is obtained by providing products, services, production. Some of people are successful and they earn more than you do. Majority of people who do earn very much, may decide, but that it their own free will, to contribute to society. However, wealth is theirs. There is no such thing as "global wealth distribution", as nobody "distributes" wealth. It is earned and obtained by providing services in exchange, by providing products in exchange, by producing something in exchange for something. If I am carpenter, and I produce a chair, I am giving you the chair and get some money. You have the chair, I have the money. If you consider both of those items to belong to "wealth" set, then you must also consider both sides of the scale: the chair and the money. If I have provided many chairs in the USA, there are many chairs in the USA "distributed" to various households. But you don't consider in your observations how much wealth (chairs, goods, products, services, manufacturing of plethods of things) was created by people and private individuals and corporations who you are targeting with those silly graphics about "wealth distribution". You only present it in the manner to say that there is something wrong that someone was smarter or some group was better organized and earning more than you. I find it selfish and thoughtless. > Patents and copyrights I totally agree with you. But that is how it is, and now we and you are using GNU Affero Public license to protect the free software. > Open source No, I don't agree with you at all. > Open source: The open-source model is a decentralized software development model that encourages open collaboration. A main principle of open-source software development is peer production, with products such as source code, blueprints, and documentation freely available to the public. The open-source movement in software began as a response to the limitations of proprietary code. The model is used for projects such as in open-source appropriate technology, and open-source drug discovery. > The best known example of open source is GNU/Linux, a free and open source operating system that is used by the majority of servers and phones today. Absolutely not. You are so much mistaken. Please read the definition of free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1] The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 1. If it is centralized and free software it really does not matter. It can be made centralized. But "centralized" or "decentralized" is not subject of free software. It can be made by any model for as long as it is free, see definition above. 2. Open collaboration -- this really does not matter. Many free software programs have been programmed without "open collaboration". Who says that free software "must be open for collaboration" -- it need not have any Git access or SVN access or at all be "open" for everybody. It can be a package of software available for download with the free software license, that is good enough. As you have the freedom to modify it, you or anybody can decide to make some collaboration or not. It is not a characteristic of free software. And finally GNU is certainly NOT a good example for "open source". In fact, with your lack of fundamentals about free software you are undermining the efforts of free software supports. Please read here why: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point I hope you understand the points and that you will respect this opinion. Jean