6 ms·

We all may have different opinions about Stallman, but one - I believe - undeniable thing is that he's an extreme purist/idealist, and he would ceaselessly figh

We all may have different opinions about Stallman, but one - I believe - undeniable thing is that he's an extreme purist/idealist, and he would ceaselessly fight for any cause he believes in. Even for a totally lost one. And here, "open source" is practical, but "free/libre software" captures the essence (which "open source" misses).

Gigachad 5y ago
Open source as defined by the OSI which is what most people agree with, is exactly identical to what RMS calls free software. RMS wants open source to mean what most people call "source available". We have the terms source available and open source which are well understood and has no ambiguity but RMS and the FSF want to push their free software term and have to change open source so their term isn't obsolete. It's nothing to do with being a purist or ideal. Because the wider understanding is exactly as pure and ideal. They just aren't the words RMS wants us to use for those meanings. He is obsessive but not for any real gain.
- User23 5y ago
  It has to do with the English meaning of words both generally and for software in particular. Free, as in freedom, is a much stronger word than open. This distinction is longstanding in the business. See for example the Open Group[1]. Those of us who can remember the past are well aware that the OSI specifically tried to co-opt the free software movement for commercial gain and specifically used the weasel term open to appeal to the suits without any of that pesky user freedom. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group
- account42 5y ago
  > RMS wants open source to mean what most people call "source available". This is not true. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > by Richard Stallman > The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. The article goes into some cases where RMS considers OSS to cover things that are not free software but these are about small details and certainly don't include anything close to "source available".

Gigachad 5y ago

Open source as defined by the OSI which is what most people agree with, is exactly identical to what RMS calls free software. RMS wants open source to mean what most people call "source available". We have the terms source available and open source which are well understood and has no ambiguity but RMS and the FSF want to push their free software term and have to change open source so their term isn't obsolete. It's nothing to do with being a purist or ideal. Because the wider understanding is exactly as pure and ideal. They just aren't the words RMS wants us to use for those meanings. He is obsessive but not for any real gain.

User23 5y ago
It has to do with the English meaning of words both generally and for software in particular. Free, as in freedom, is a much stronger word than open. This distinction is longstanding in the business. See for example the Open Group[1]. Those of us who can remember the past are well aware that the OSI specifically tried to co-opt the free software movement for commercial gain and specifically used the weasel term open to appeal to the suits without any of that pesky user freedom. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group
account42 5y ago
> RMS wants open source to mean what most people call "source available". This is not true. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > by Richard Stallman > The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. The article goes into some cases where RMS considers OSS to cover things that are not free software but these are about small details and certainly don't include anything close to "source available".