9 ms·

Not really. RMS has harshly rejected terms like "open source" for free software. "Openness" is a relative and meaninglessly vague term in this context. Anyth

Not really. RMS has harshly rejected terms like "open source" for free software. "Openness" is a relative and meaninglessly vague term in this context. Anything short of a open-sourced program and completely public data is less "open" than some alternative. The complaints that 99.99% of people make about APIs have less to do with "openness" than poor communication by the provider in the forms of bad documentation and unwarned changes. TFA: "Facebook Connect is not open. It's controlled by one company." Yes, because if it was another company, you wouldn't care about this API. The API only matters to anyone because it's Facebook. I adore free software, but "openness" is a lousy justification for trying to work up umbrage about the difficulties of working in a parasitic developer ecosystem.

ZeroMinx 16y ago
There are plenty of words in this particular universe that are thrown around a lot. You mention "openness". Another big one is "freedom". You can discuss to great length what these words mean, but I'm not going down that route tonight. I don't know specifically what RMS has said and has not said. For the most of it I'm not interested. What I am interested in are the actions. Like him or not, but RMS has clearly done good things for anyone who believes computers should be devices that you and I are free to hack on on your own. (I'm carefully avoiding your TFA quote because I have nothing useful to comment on that. Yes, I agree that the API only has value because it's coming from this one company. I don't really think this has much to do with openness).
- Semiapies 16y ago
  I'm not really concerned about RMS. I just pointed out that he isn't about "open". To the extent that you're fond of free software and RMS, that's nice, but the topic is TFA.
  - ZeroMinx 16y ago
    Alright, we're discussing "open" vs "free". Right now I don't care too much about semantics.. For anyone reading this that don't know what we're on about , read --> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... (edit: I generally agree with RMS's points. I might confuse "open" and "free". For anyone not native to English these words might be interchangeable. I'm not a native English speaker. It becomes clearer when you define the words such as done in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... , but in a day to day conversation, it's easy to get the exact definitions wrong)
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      "Alright, we're discussing "open" vs "free"." No, we're not discussing one thing vs. another, we're discussing different things. That is a whole other situation entirely.
  - ZeroMinx 16y ago
    (yea I realized my distance from the TFA half way through my first post.. but decided to post anyway. (possibly a bad decision). And it has lead to a bit of a discussion. Which is good -- which is what I like)

ZeroMinx 16y ago

There are plenty of words in this particular universe that are thrown around a lot. You mention "openness". Another big one is "freedom". You can discuss to great length what these words mean, but I'm not going down that route tonight. I don't know specifically what RMS has said and has not said. For the most of it I'm not interested. What I am interested in are the actions. Like him or not, but RMS has clearly done good things for anyone who believes computers should be devices that you and I are free to hack on on your own. (I'm carefully avoiding your TFA quote because I have nothing useful to comment on that. Yes, I agree that the API only has value because it's coming from this one company. I don't really think this has much to do with openness).

Semiapies 16y ago
I'm not really concerned about RMS. I just pointed out that he isn't about "open". To the extent that you're fond of free software and RMS, that's nice, but the topic is TFA.
- ZeroMinx 16y ago
  Alright, we're discussing "open" vs "free". Right now I don't care too much about semantics.. For anyone reading this that don't know what we're on about , read --> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... (edit: I generally agree with RMS's points. I might confuse "open" and "free". For anyone not native to English these words might be interchangeable. I'm not a native English speaker. It becomes clearer when you define the words such as done in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... , but in a day to day conversation, it's easy to get the exact definitions wrong)
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    "Alright, we're discussing "open" vs "free"." No, we're not discussing one thing vs. another, we're discussing different things. That is a whole other situation entirely.
- ZeroMinx 16y ago
  (yea I realized my distance from the TFA half way through my first post.. but decided to post anyway. (possibly a bad decision). And it has lead to a bit of a discussion. Which is good -- which is what I like)