3 ms·
> That is a pretty cynical take. FSF good, OSI bad. I ascribed no moral value judgement on which is better. However , Tim O'Reilly isn't exactly shy about who
by sangnoir 2y ago
> That is a pretty cynical take. FSF good, OSI bad.
I ascribed no moral value judgement on which is better. However , Tim O'Reilly isn't exactly shy about who the target of those early Open Source conferences (OSCON) were, and what they were attempting to achieve - which they succeeded at.
- immibis 2y agoFree software isn't great either. Stallman is fine with proprietary software as long as it's baked in ROM, which is even worse than making it distributable but without providing source.
- api 2y agoHe’s pragmatic on that. He would prefer free ROM but knows getting hardware companies to do that is quite the uphill battle. ROM is generally hardware specific anyway so there is less benefit to it being free. Where else would you run it?
- immibis 2y agoROM is generally firmware for an embedded processor, and being able to modify that opens up new possibilities for the device i.e. more freedom. For example it might be possible to implement new offload features on a network card - the fact that no one bothers to do so doesn't mean the possibility shouldn't be there. I'd rather have the vendor put it in public domain or thereabouts, and make it editable. They're making money by selling the hardware anyway.