3 ms·

No, he explicitly rejects the open source definition of free software. You only have to google "Stallman Open Source" and read the first three results to see h

by FraaJad 17y ago

No, he explicitly rejects the open source definition of free software. You only have to google "Stallman Open Source" and read the first three results to see how ill informed your opinion is. edit: Links * Why Free software is better than Open Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html * Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html It does not matter whether you think "Free software" is "Open Source". The originator of the "Free software" term does NOT agree with you. He is quite explicit in stating the philosophical goals of the FS movement. It's not limited to "Open source" at all.

daeken 17y ago
You're ignoring my words entirely. I'm speaking about the 'open source movement' as the general trend toward open source and Free Software. RMS is clearly one of the early figures in the movement. I'm not saying RMS is a figurehead of 'open source', which is why I used the term Free Software in every instance but one.
- tome 17y ago
  You used it at least twice, in particular casting RMS as a 'leader' of the Open Source Movement: "...open source is bigger than ever ... the last thing we need is a 'leader'..."
  - daeken 17y ago
    My apologies, I hadn't intended to use that there, was just writing quickly. I've corrected it to 'Free Software'.
barrkel 17y ago
I think there's a very important semantic point to be made here. The open source movement would not have happened in the way it did without the free software movement. I believe to deny that is to be delusional about the reality of the situation. The semantic point is that the opinion of an originator of an effect has no necessary correspondence as to whether they were responsible for that effect or not. Despite Stallman's protestations to the contrary, despite his opposition to open source, these things do not make him any less responsible (in the cause-effect sense) for the open source movement. The inadvertence of the effect is irrelevant to the fact of its existence.

by FraaJad 17y ago

daeken 17y ago

You're ignoring my words entirely. I'm speaking about the 'open source movement' as the general trend toward open source and Free Software. RMS is clearly one of the early figures in the movement. I'm not saying RMS is a figurehead of 'open source', which is why I used the term Free Software in every instance but one.

tome 17y ago
You used it at least twice, in particular casting RMS as a 'leader' of the Open Source Movement: "...open source is bigger than ever ... the last thing we need is a 'leader'..."
- daeken 17y ago
  My apologies, I hadn't intended to use that there, was just writing quickly. I've corrected it to 'Free Software'.

barrkel 17y ago

I think there's a very important semantic point to be made here. The open source movement would not have happened in the way it did without the free software movement. I believe to deny that is to be delusional about the reality of the situation. The semantic point is that the opinion of an originator of an effect has no necessary correspondence as to whether they were responsible for that effect or not. Despite Stallman's protestations to the contrary, despite his opposition to open source, these things do not make him any less responsible (in the cause-effect sense) for the open source movement. The inadvertence of the effect is irrelevant to the fact of its existence.