MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-05-24 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Balug-talk] [rick@linuxmafia.com: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a sorry day for The Linux?Journal]
|
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Ruben kindly forwarded a second post from Richard:
>
> >> I (continue to) dispute my friend Richard's assertion that the open
> >> source movement has only practical (pragmatic) goals. It has in my
> >> experience the same goals as does the free software movement -- but uses
> >> differing marketing terminology to advance those goals.
> >>
> > Your experience is very different from mine.
> >
> > In my experience, statements that advocate "open source" cite only
> > practical goals, such as making software powerful and reliable. They
> > argue that software which is not open source is likely not to be
> > powerful and reliable; but when confronted with the non-free program
> > which IS powerful and reliable, they have no criticism to make.
>
> Actually, this subtly but fundamentally changes the subject on the fly.
>
> Please note carefully what I said: I said that in my experience the
> _goals_ are the same, but different marketing terminology gets used.
> You then cite "statements that advocate" -- but those are, in fact, the
> aforementioned marketing terminology. You essentially conflated goals
> with tactics, there. Thus, you didn't actually compare our experience
> (of the matter under discussion).
>
> My apples were indeed not orange -- but the oranges were in a different
> produce bin. ;->
>
> As to "having no criticism to make" when confronted with a powerful and
> reliable non-free codebase, I find that difficult to believe. Not being
> an open-source advocate, I nonetheless think I can simulate one at need:
>
> Proprietary package $foo is claimed to be powerful and reliable,
> but that is a mirage: $foo can be maintained and developed only
> as long as its owner permits, and can be adapted only to situations
> and needs he/she authorises. The owner may retire to the country
> and take up beekeeping tomorrow; $foo then becomes unmaintainable
> abandonware. Our computing needs to be planned not just for today,
> but for a variety of tomorrows. Something that potentially has the
> remaining development life of a... mayfly is not "reliable" in any
> meaningful sense, and it's "power" cannot safely be relied on.
> We're much smarter to rely on open source alternative $bar, whose
> advances may not have quite reached $foo's, but unlike $foo's are
> ours permanently, and lack the unacceptable restrictive baggage.
>
> Any resemblance to Prof. D.J. Bernstein's primary offerings is strictly
> intentional.
>
>
> > To mention one real example, consider the question, "If you are
> > developing a free program, and you find that a non-free version
> > control system helps you do the work, should you use it?" Torvalds
> > answered that question "yes" a few years ago. I would be surprised if
> > the OSI web site presents any argument to the contrary.
>
> An argument from the standpoint of lack of evidence, especially on a
> matter not within OSI's purview in the first place, seems an amazingly
> weak one.
>
> That aside, it should be nonetheless noted that, when McVoy approached
> OSI on the subject in 1999, they made a special point of giving him a
> ringingly unwelcoming response:
> http://lwn.net/1999/features/BitKeeper.php3
>
> Note the limits thereof: OSI made absolutely crystal clear that
> BitKeeper, even under its original and less-noxious licence, was not
> within a country mile of being open source per their DFSG-equivalent
> definition. And then they stopped there, because that's where the scope
> of their concern ended.
>
> OSI are not the people I would look to for crusading pursuit of freedom
> _per se_, but in General Semantics terms the map of their promised
> land's territory seems to pretty much exactly match yours.
>
> > Another real example is, "Should you add non-free drivers, programming
> > platforms, and apps to GNU/Linux distributions?" The free software
> > movement says, "No, because non-free software is unethical." By
> > contrast, supporters of open source typically consider their inclusion
> > a positive feature.
>
> Oh, now you're defining "[typical] supporters of open source" to fit
> your rhetorical needs of the moment.
>
> First, you're being vague: Which "supporters", specifically?
> Proprietary-software corporations and patent-constrained hardware
> manufacturers who would happen to find that outcome convenient? That
> seems more than a little facile. Second, any idea that is to be judged
> by a selective subset of its casual adherents is in deep trouble. You
> cannot fairly draw a conclusion about the idea's merits from _that_.
>
> Third, you're replicating the careless error of that other guy on this
> mailing list who (badly) quoted Torvalds as supposedly being an obvious
> spokesman for open source (when he has in fact not purported to do that
> at all): You're rather blatantly disregarding the _truly_ obvious
> spokesmen for that movement -- the people who for almost a decade have
> _been_ the literal spokesmen: If you're trying to establish that such
> statements are characteristic of open source, then where are the
> quotations to that effect from OSI Board members and official spokemen?
> Larry Rosen? Russell Nelson? Michael Tiemann?
>
> I don't think you can, because I know to one degree or another all of
> those people and most of the others, and your portrayal simply does not
> reflect their views.
>
> _______________________________________________
> balug-talk mailing list
> balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
> http://lists.balug.org/listinfo.cgi/balug-talk-balug.org
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://fairuse.nylxs.com
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
|
|
