4 ms·

Many people say open source but mean free software; there's not much software that is the former but not the latter. The success of free software is in the fact

Many people say open source but mean free software; there's not much software that is the former but not the latter. The success of free software is in the fact that for many developers, it is the default license; most developers will prefer free software, all else considered equal. This was not always the case. Free software is absolutely ubiquitous, has only grown for decades and has had no major schisms. That makes it a very effective ideology. >would Stallman still work with me? Yes. Stallman works with many people who disagree with many of his pet peeves.

eesmith 7y ago
I ... think you are talking about the licensing details, and not the respective movements/ideologies, which is what I thought we were talking about? Stallman at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... points out: > The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't. ... > As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions. So, Stallman says they are "fundamentally different" ideologies, and claims that most open source supporters are not developing open source because of issues related to software freedom. Which was the point I was trying to make. Is Stallman, or my interpretation of Stallman, incorrect?

eesmith 7y ago

I ... think you are talking about the licensing details, and not the respective movements/ideologies, which is what I thought we were talking about? Stallman at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... points out: > The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't. ... > As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions. So, Stallman says they are "fundamentally different" ideologies, and claims that most open source supporters are not developing open source because of issues related to software freedom. Which was the point I was trying to make. Is Stallman, or my interpretation of Stallman, incorrect?