Our Campaigns Team creates educational materials about free software, convenes the yearly LibrePlanet conference and goes toe to toe against powerful interests that threaten computer user rights. Search the FSF's Web site:. Looking for free software? Why the hell is my government hiding this data?
A species of big-eared bats on the west coast known to hibernate in only a few locations. It's an open pit gravel quarry, not sure if it's your government, I'm in Canada.
There are still people actively working on the project, or at least doing work that came from it, as far as I know, so I'd rather not be too detailed about it. That sounds really frustrating. Fortunately many countries now have open data legislation. This was during the reign of Prime minister Stephen Harper. Most funding towards the environment was cut during that time and scientists in Canada silenced fairly heavily. Elsewhere in the thread I was half-way through typing up a comment asking whether this was during the Harper era, and then decided better of it.
Glad to see I wasn't wrong. Horrifying the things that were happening with environmental science in that period. I mean, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear that it was still going on He wasn't blacklisted for committing thought crime. The dumb Epstein email triggered a reevaluation of his consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior against current community standards, which resulted in a large part of the community deciding they didn't want anything to do with him anymore.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences. There is another large part of the community that wants no part in the community as a result of events like this.
I guess we will end up with two communities one focused on software the other focused on social justice wokeware. It looks like the social justice community will get the code and trademarks. Fortunately thanks to RMS the code is available to fork. I guess things aren't organised yet but I and others I have spoken to IRL have already stopped interacting with certain projects.
I was wondering if some of the community's thought leaders might jump ship - but I guess they will be purged anyway so that should help! EDIT: Would any downvoters care to comment on why they think this won't happen?
Do they think we will continue to participate against our will The assumption that those who care about treating others decently can not at the same time be good technologists speaks volumes. In my experience social justice equates to the opposite of treating people decently. People like RMS and Linus Torvalds are responsible for normalizing the premise that to be a good hacker you can't care about things like treating other people decently - that's just giving in to politically correct wrongthink from SJWs and normie scum after all.
I still have to testimony an useful contribution or proof of donation from those attacking open source projects for not using gender neutral pronouns. I'm not young anymore, in my 40s, but I have hope that in the next 40 years some of them will stop being a dick and do actual work. It's never too late to change. Can you detail, without strawmen or anecdotes, the thought process by which you equate asking to use gender neutral pronouns, or discussing the possibility of it, with "attacks"?
Its not asking though. Its screaming, threatening and drumming people out of their jobs if they don't comply. I say this as someone that uses gender neutral pronouns etc. Can you provide some examples that prove the existence a common pattern in the software development industry of people being "screamed at", "threatened", and "drummed out of their jobs" for not using gender neutral pronouns, please?
I'm more than ready to agree with you if you can. I would also like to know, if you don't mind, what you consider to be good reason to "refuse to comply" with addressing someone in a way they prefer to be addressed, by using a three-letter word instead of another three-letter word.
I'm out of the loop. Was someone fired over this? You're experiencing the motte and bailey in action, my friend. You're hoping that the next generation will see the light and adjust their behaviour to your expectations? It ain't gonna happen. This is the struggle of every single generation. Interesting, I've been thinking about this myself: whether a new foundation or movement will be created around RMS and without the stigmas that allow people to be "cancelled" over their thoughts or opinions.
I firmly believe a "fork" for the FSF is coming soon. If that's true, then Stallman has completely failed as a leader. There are 7 billion people in the world; if after 40 years there is nobody of similar caliber at the FSF, it is because he has either not attracted them, not trained them, or has driven them away.
Perhaps by asking them on a date or handing them a card that said "tender embraces" the very first time he met them. I sincerely hope that there will be people in the FSF that can make it more robust, and set it up for long-term success. Nobody wants to be friend with the smart friend who's also unpopular. And that's what he failed, he trusted people would be decent. They are not. Nothing to do with him being unpopular, since i I at the time was an unpopular nerd too.
We are not alone. It takes a brave person to put their head above the parapet in the current climate. As usual, not trying to be prejudicial here, it happened in the U. There can't be one strong FSF they want many small feuds, it's like greenwashing, open washing is happening, which, BTW, "misses the point of free software".
Look at what happened to Eben Moglen, a person that nobody can describe as harsh, impolite, unempathetic, creepy or whatever BS they are throwing now at RMS. And still in he was declared "no longer a friend of the free software community" by mjg Because Moglen expressed his lawyer opinion in a way that Garret did not like. Garret works at Google, Moglen still offers pro bono legal representation at the Software Freedom Law Center, which he founded.
It's not hard to take parts for me. He has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things: -Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. It's an honest question. Can I have a reliable source on the suicide threat? In particular something indicating it was genuine rather than jocular. From someone who worked at MIT.
I see no dates, names, details or basically anything of substance relating to the suicide threat story. It seems to just be one of those sourceless rumours that get passed around as gospel. Note in particular that the commentator does not say they saw this or even that someone who saw it told them. You're just hearing a rumour this person heard at MIT. I don't see any reliable source there. Are some of those profiles verified?
I also didn't see any reference to suicide. I often see this phrase and it looks like a fallacy to me. Does anyone question its validity? Social consequences are a severe thing, in practice they mean losing a job or position, boycotting, etc. In ancient Greece to expel a person was a very strong punishment.
Nowadays the associated hardbacks are milder perhaps, but still are pretty severe. If speech is so potent a weapon that to protect against it we have to use extreme social defenses like expulsion, why not to use the same weapon against the perpetrators? Why not to speak in return? Stallman says something, you say something. Take that, Richard Stallman! I would say that the only appropriate social consequence of free speech could be other free speech.
Also, a distinct characteristic of a true community is that it's inclusive. It can expel its members, but this has to be a very rare event, only when that person's action are actually destroying the community. It's a mere personality quirk. Because the power of the speech in question depends upon the power of the speaker.
This isn't rocket science. If I as a random human person say something creepy to you on the street you can just go away. If Stallman does it and you are working under him you have to weigh a whole lot of things academic standing, his prestige, the possibility that a whole lot of people will defend him just because of who he is and accuse you of accusing him of a "thoughtcrime" in your response. It's an assymetrical situation.
In a world that respects free speech, you would be more empowered to criticise authority, not less. But the pro free speech crowd are advocating for a world where you and stallman criticise each other harshly, but both get to keep your jobs, it being a strong norm that whoever calls for the other to lose their job over speech automatically loses the argument.
I can't believe people are so short sighted about free speech. The people who are happy with control of speech will regret advocating for it as soon as it spreads outside of the domains where their allies presently have power. Sure, I guess. In this case, as far as I can see, Stallman's coworkers' speech about his terrible behavior led to him resigning. Nothing wrong with that. I'm nowhere close to saying that.
The "little guy" is already facing the consequences I delineated, as this thread shows. Speeches have consequences, both Stallman's and anyone's. The thing is, this presupposes that each other's speech or criticism is equivalent, which it isn't.
A creepy remark is not equivalent to a criticism of that remark - I really didn't think I'd have to spell this out. If someone is being creepy towards coworkers and subordinates and this behavior continues for years, then yes, this should have consequences - up to and including the person in question losing their job, depending on the severity.
Calling for someone to be fired shouldn't lose someone their "argument" if the person should be fired. There's some equivocation here that this is some sort of intellectual academic dispute that led to him resigning. It isn't. It's reports of his creepy behavior, not two people "criticising" each other.
Smithalicious 9 months ago. Amazing how whenever someone does something controversial and gets forced out soon afterwards, it's never the thing they said, but "consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior" based on 10 year old anecdotes that suddenly appear out of nowhere I'd think that if someone was "consistently" creepy and inappropriate, there would be a pretty good public record for that, but what do I know?
EDIT: Let me give a bit more of a nuanced position, because reading my post back, it looks like I'm saying that Stallman never did anything inappropriate before this. Of course, I recognize that Stallman is fucking weird. I'm not saying that parrot-fucking, foot-fungus-eating St. IGNUcius never did anything inappropriate before; we'd be here for a long time if we were to make a list of all the times Stallman failed to read the mood.
However, I strongly believe that Stallman is not a creep. He holds some odd views and is pretty autistic, and so he occasionally makes inappropriate advances. Add to that that Stallman has been a very prolific person for decades and you won't relaly have trouble coming up with a list of anecdotes that, when framed a certain way, make him look bad. I've read quite a few of these anecdotes by now. Some of them look fairly innocent to me. Some of them are clear social blunders. None of them look seriously harmful or in bad faith to me.
What ticks me off so much about all this is the way the media deals with it. Stallman is portrayed as some kind of sexist, some kind of patriarch keeping women out of tech. It's ridiculous; Stallman is quite possibly the most inclusionary person I can think of. Stallman has had an immense, direct contribution to making tech more open for everyone. I can understand the criticism of Stallman.
I don't even think he necessarily makes for a good figurehead for Free Software; he has poor social skills, unhelpfully rigid and strong positions, and I feel like he often conflates free software issues with other social issues he cares about. He makes for a better philosopher than a political leader. In this case, he's being thrown under the bus to score social points. People in tech are very itchy to do whatever they can to seem more inclusive, and condemning Epstein and his ilk is a noble goal that also makes you look good.
Stallman's statements that sparked this controversy were naive and he failed to read the mood, but they were not unacceptable things to believe or say. He did not deserve to have his words twisted, get kicked out of his own organisation based on the strawman, and then have people say that he was always bad, anyways. One could also see it the other way round: because of the importance of his figure people were more willing to keep their mouths shut and look the other way.
This is why medival monarchs had jesters to tell them what is really going on. The right thing to do of course is to speek truth to power openly and before everybody else does it, but this could come with serious consequences for the person speaking up. In other words: people in positions like Stallman can get away with much more than any regular guy, which means they should be extra considerate of their role and their environment if they care about the effects their own power and fame has on it.
If it everybody steps up now, it means there was clearly a disconnect between his self image and what his environment thought about him. Oh, certainly. Decades worth of small issues that Stallman was mostly unaware of are being condensed into one big issue.
That's why I think the situation is crooked; in my view, Stallman never did anything particularly bad, nor did he harbor any ill will, yet he's facing the consequences of a major scandal. Also, I don't think that Stallman should be held to the standards of a "medieval monarch".
I think you're overstating just how powerful Stallman is was? Your points are good but perhaps more applicable to someone like Linus Torvalds, who is fully aware of his controversial behaviour and does actually hold a position of substantial power. Even if the discussion is getting repetitive, making it more repetitive makes it worse. More importantly, please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, even if the topic is inflammatory and divisive.
The second is unacceptable if it happened as told. I don't know what to think of the first point without context. The third point seems like an innocent joke to me, if slightly inappropriate. I don't mean to defend him from any kind it accusation, but all of this is meaningless without full context and hearing the story from both sides.
Izkata 9 months ago. I've seen enough narrative flipping over the years that this is the one I find least plausible, and requires more information. Hence "if it happened as told". These kinds of allegations are tough because while these things do happen, they're also strong enough allegations that they require serious proof, while also being essentially unprovable. I never know how to feel when something like this comes up since on the one hand I don't want to discourage victims from speaking up, but on the other hand, no good ever comes from them.
Interestingly, in a world with strong norms against speech having career consequences, people would have been empowered to speak up earlier. The expectation that unpopular speech will have consequences for them makes them keep quiet until they are sure their views are popular. The way it is now encourages both wielding controversy as a weapon as well as remaining silent to avoid a conflict for their own sake, but also the other party. Would there? A friend of a friend hit on my under age sister at a party at my house.
There were witnesses to both events. There are accounts of his behaviour going back decades, so I'm not sure what you're claiming with this? By which you mean a bunch of Twitter nobodies and one somebody who happens to speak for the gnome project. A handful of anecdotes over two decades does not make for "consistent creepy and inappropriate behaviour".
I also think those deciding they didn't want anything to do with him are a tiny minority if you exclude those who have never met him and even then, probably still a small minority. Please don't. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values.
The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles.
This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term. These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.
The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since In we launched the development of the free operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to their users.
During the s, we developed most of the essential components of the system and designed the GNU General Public License GNU GPL to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program. Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals of the free software movement. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values.
Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. 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. The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values.
For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand.
At worst, it has become a vacuous buzzword. Radical groups in the s had a reputation for factionalism: some organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar basic goals and values.
The right wing made much of this and used it to criticize the entire left. Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same practical behavior—such as developing free software. 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.
The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that. How can I get a copy? So I reject your program.
Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement. And, even though the licenses are the same, a person's choice of terminology may imply a different emphasis in values. The concept of "free software" was developed by Richard Stallman in the s. The focus is on what the recipient of software is permitted to do with the software: "Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software.
Free software came first. Later, it became apparent that free software was leading to remarkable collaboration dynamics. In , Eric Raymond's seminal essay " The Cathedral and the Bazaar " focused attention on the implications that free software has for software development methodology. In " Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software ," Stallman explains: "The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values.
Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. Different values? But not mutually exclusive. Rather than aligning with one or the other, many people find varying degrees of resonance with the values underlying each term.
What if someone wants to refer to this type of software without specifying underlying values? Awkwardly, there is no broadly accepted term that refers to the licenses or the software that's neutral about the values implied by each term. It may be that "open source" was initially expected to be a neutral term; however, it has developed its own implied values.
Perhaps the existence of two such terms with and without "L" may have diluted and thus diminished the ability of either to break out as a broadly used term. This assortment of terms has contributed to confusion. Would a neutral term be useful? Or is the attempt to separate the associated values a flawed goal? Is a neutral term inappropriate because there are significant free software projects that would not be considered open source? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
Richard Stallman may have his own idea about what he means by free software, but taken literally it only means that is comes cost-free, and doesn't necessarily imply that it is open source.
Because if its technical, precise, and useful In many cases, the word "free" itself is overloaded. Chosen by the "Free Software" movement because of its ambiguity. Free from cost, freedom to use, freedom of choice Stallman wants "free" to mean everything he wants it to mean, without any of the meanings otherwise attached to the word.
Ultimately, Stallman wants to distinguish between the "Open Source" community with his "Free Software" philosophy. There's plenty of more appropriate words, such as "Copyleft" software, available at his disposal. Ambiguity is good. It allows the people who hear the word to imagine the best possibilities, as opposed to focusing on the technical details or legalize. I've seen this often, but I don't think it's true. How about "liberated"? This implies that restrictions did exist at one point, which is true, as copyright is assigned by default and needs to be explicitly liberated in most places.
It also reminds people who forget to assign a license of the importance to do so. I'm sure there are other single words that would convey the same message.
As you say liberated software implies a removal of restrictions, but I think it implies it was accomplished by force. I think it would be a good term for someone who believes piracy to be a moral imperative, but I don't think it's a good term for expressing the idea of the author willingly sharing their work. Honestly, the name is a problem. If you read "free software", you will think of free as in gratis. Nobody thinks about freedom there, because of that its not popular.
The GitHub purchase demonstrates once again that rms is right. Do proponents of Free Software, on the whole, assert that the concept of intellectual property should not exist?
Proponents of Free Software, on the whole, would caution against the term "intellectual property". Are you referring to: -copyright? Because, in general: -copyright is obnoxious, but usable. The GPL depends on it. There is no one concept of "intellectual property," and most people using it are confused or being deceptive. In part it is just an extension of anti-fraud laws, where one company is forbidden to masquerade their product as if they were produced by someone else usually by someone of high reputation.
I think historically you could not even sell a trademark, which really put it far away from the concept of property. In fact, copyleft licenses are completely dependent on copyright. Copyleft advocates sometimes claim that copyleft "uses copyright against itself", but this isn't really true. Copyleft uses copyright, but not against copyright.
If there was no copyright all else equal , creative works would be in the public domain, truly free for anyone to use more or less like the MIT and BSD licensed works today. The purpose behind copyright laws is to let copyright owners make money of their content. Copyleft licenses leverage the language of copyright laws to subvert the purpose of copyright laws: copyleft licenses roughly say you are authorized to do whatever you want to do with my content, as long as you let others also do whatever they want with my content.
No, I am using the language of current legal system which recognized IP because otherwise I have to establish an alternative context. Again, the language is being used, but the underlying purpose behind the law is not being respected. We can imagine a society where copyright laws don't exist, i. All else equal, anyone would be free to make a modified Linux and publish the compiled binary without being required to publish the source code. What you describe would require not only abolition of copyright law but also a new copyleft law.
Im not talking legally im talking under the moralizing perspective of Free Software. More precisely, under GPL the author of the software has no power over users. The author has all the same rights as the users. So many arguments start because they use the term "free" instead of "freed". Is free software against copyright laws?
But note that "being against copyright" is different from "advocating violating current copyright laws". Ok i think i understand it just mostly sounds delusional considering the lived reality of capitalism. Perhaps if UBI becomes a thing? Why would "free software" imply that you could ignore other people's copyrights, take other people's non-free work and give it away?
If Disney offered you a program to play all their movies, you could say "I refuse to use their black-box proprietary movie player, I will only use a free software video player that I can inspect, to make sure it isn't scanning my computer for copyrighted Disney movies and reporting everything it finds back to Disneyland, and one I can recompile to put the video stream into the background of my transparent terminal because I'm not watching dozens of hours of movies unless I can work at the same time".
That's the kind of thing it's supporting. I understand the nature of the problem. Something you understand: quote "Open Source" as if it's a single movement didn't win in creating desirable, accessible, commercial or beautiful software. It 'won' in the worst possible way - big companies like Amazon and Facebook took the work, hid it in their datacenters behind their paywalls, and use it to extract money from people. Nobody has any more freedom with their data and their computing because Facebook uses PHP, than they would have on a proprietary desktop OS.
I agree lived reality is more complex, but if you can start from a moralizing ideology you agree with, that can make decisions for you to simplify it. But then you risk living with a Leemote Yeelong laptop and using the web over plain text email.
One can be developed without donations, one can't. See GNU, they haven't ever been able to sell software as a product. Religious argument that comes down to preference. Might as well say "Why Emacs misses the point of modal editing. Or do you just disagree with the idea that reasonable people might hold a different preference to yours, whichever flavor you prefer? I didn't downvote, but I think people disliked your use of the word "religious", as it's sort of a discussion-stopper.
To answer your point, the difference is that most people confuse the terms, which have a very different connotation. One is about software quality, the other is about users' freedom as defined by the fsf. Emacs does not try to appeal to business or users in general by using the principles of vim in a more business-friendly connotation, so comparing the issue at hand with "emacs misses the point of modal editing" kind of misses the point, if you will :.
That's kind of the point. There's no use arguing about it since it's a matter of personal preference — i. I don't think this illustrates a problem with the metaphor. They're both fine editors and reflect the preferences of their developers.
Ditto different software licenses. Free software is what gives you a choice. Then you can prefer it to proprietary software or not. But replying "it's a preference" to an article trying to explain what free software is and isn't and why it exists, makes no sense.
The preference is whether, as a creator, you license your work under a free software license or an open source license. Users never had a say in the license of the work they consume, so they're sort of irrelevant. I'm not sure what dictators have to do with anything. The original articulator of open-source values, Eric Raymond, whose essays helped crystallize open source as a "movement", gets free software on a fundamental level.
He and Stallman were once close friends, and from his blog posts and comments it seems he and Stallman are in broad agreement on the points of software freedom being good and proprietary lock-in being evil.
The reason why open source is a "thing" is to convey these benefits -- these virtues -- to an audience that doesn't think like Richard Stallman. It was an exercise in much-needed marketing for the movement. At the time, no one could out-market Microsoft. Unless free-software hackers had a counterstrategy that didn't sound like a tin-pot revolution organized by bearded, Kaczynski-esque radicals, they would lose and lose big.
Criticize Raymond's efforts all you want. They're not buying into free software, they're buying into open source. Most of what MS is doing in the space is using Apache-style licenses. It's currently MIT. Even Stallman distinguishes between free software, which includes MIT- and Apache-licensed software, and copylefted software, which is the subset of free software that requires changes to be distributed under like terms to the original software itself.
But not doing so is not the inherent submission to evil that using proprietary software is, in their view. No one says using proprietary software is evil. What you do with your computer is none of my business.
Distributing software without giving the recipient a right to inspect, modify and share it is what is evil. And buying and using that software is submitting to evil forces.
Which is what I said. The Apache license is absolutely a free software license. Even the FSF agrees with that. I find the GPL 'free software' license to be a lot less 'free' than other kinds of open source licenses in terms of what you are allowed to do as a user of the software.
For example, with GPL, you do not have ownership over any derived work that you produce; you are legally forced to share your work with everyone. This is a weapon to allow big corporations to sue small indie developers and startups who are trying to compete with them. The balance of power is asymmetric. Only corporations have the money to legally enforce GPL licenses - Also, the creator of the software is allowed to keep their own derivative work private because they have copyright but no one else can everyone else is bound by copyleft.
Quite the contrary. For users of software, there's no better license than strong copyleft licenses. You are free to produce derived works and keep them to yourself, or even to your organization. No need to share source with anyone. You have to give to that user the same rights you got: full source code and GPL-provided rights. You do not have to give those out to "everyone", only to those to whom you distribute your derived works.
Only corporations have the money to legally enforce GPL licenses If not via the law, how can rights possibly be enforced? Also, note that the GPL has been enforced — for better or worse — by individuals against far richer corporations. This is, of course, only because of the fear of the law. As I said above, this is false. Your changes are yours, and you retain copyright on them. Code you didn't write, of course, is not under your copyright; but you still have the full rights granted to you by the GPL to do with them privately as you please.
What you're saying about not having to share your derived work with others is completely untrue. They distributed the application, which used GPLd code, so they need to abide by the rules. He has to release the code because he is distributing an application as in, distributing the binary files based on GPL code.
If you don't distribute anything, you don't have to share anything, that's the point of the parent comment. Also in my first comment, when I said "work" I was talking about the source code, not the software.ChuckMcM on Why open source misses the point of free software 4, I really enjoyed that old televisions and radios included the schematic in the owners manual so that you could repair them down to the component level. Neither of those examples gave you the right to re-distribute your why open source misses the point of free software, and yet they were in fact valuable things to have. Devil's advocate though: You have the requisite technical knowledge to do those things. Not everyone does. If someone non-technical's stuff breaks, you can't distribute the changes you've already made yourself. It limits the value of the why open source misses the point of free software you're putting in and it limits the repairability of an item based on the owner's skills. It's a bad analogy but it's as though car repair shops were illegal an introduction to language 10th edition pdf free download you could only repair your own car. Most people would have some pretty junky beat-up cars or they'd be buying new ones every year. It's a great analogy: just look at the Mac repair shops being sued by Apple, or the idiotic things printer manufacturers and even coffee pod makers do to prevent people from "pirating" their machines. Free software, and arguably free markets, mean free secondary markets for used goods. That includes all the repair shops and a cottage industry of craftsmen who provide those why open source misses the point of free software and services. Free secondary markets is a great analogy for open source. What comes to mind is forks and plugins of open source projects, I guess they are a secondary market for the main project. AstralStorm on June 5, Full forks are very rare. I could count important ones on my fingers. Most common pattern is multiple packages solving the same problem, rather than forks - and incompatible versions. SmellyGeekBoy on June 5, I would not call Ubuntu a Fork Why free software misses the point of open source: Through exchanges with Eric Raymond and reading his blog posts, I've found that by and large, he agrees. impotenzberatung.com › today › stories › why-open-source-misses-the-point-of-fr. Richard Stallman writes about the difference between Free Software and Open Souce Software. At some point there should be the counter essay which is "Why Free Software Misses the Point of Open Source." There is tremendous value in. In the years to come, I believe free software will be recognised as one of the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done. Now chemists and biologists. Where you miss the point, Mr Pittman, is that since Richard Stallman started the free software movement, his idea of what free software is is the *. Download Citation | Viewpoint Why "Open Source" Misses the Point of Free Software | Some of the significant factors associated with 'open source software' and. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote any user can study the source code, modify it, and share the program. The Right To Read · Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software. Richard Stallman writes, "The rhetoric of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even develop, free software. The binary code is still copyrighted. So moving the Linux kernel to GPLv3 may not be entirely trivial, but that's not the reason it hasn't been done. You may not agree with this viewpoint, but he is clearly sincere in holding it, and it is his right. Note that Stallman himself is quite comfortable with his notions about mandatory sharing being enforced through state violence: "Richard is against abolishing copyrights because, to his view, without copyright, enforcing copyleft would be impossible. It is a complete misnomer. Edit: quoting against edits. Deejahll on June 13, This presumes that any modifications to "your" code that someone else makes should be none of your business. I am free to do whatever I please with that code, including to modify it, and release the modifications under a different license ie executable only, heavy DRM, whatever. There is a set of engaged core OpenProject developers and product maintainers who also need to pay their bills. Under the GPL, the source code is open for all eternity, even if the original author changes her mind later. GPL lives in real-world social context, less abstract than all this other stuff.