[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Re: "Open source" is not what we do here
From: |
Gopal.V |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Re: "Open source" is not what we do here |
Date: |
Sat, 6 Apr 2002 14:13:41 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
If memory serves me right, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> My question for you:
> Do you consider Nintendo evil for keeping their games closed?
Doesn't Nintendo run on proprietary hardware ?. (sorry, but I'm
a bit ignorant there). The point is Nintendo is "Free" to keep
their software closed . If that's acceptable to you when a free
alternative exists, you're "Free" to use it . Free Software is all
about "Freedom" , anything that restricts the community's freedom
is (of course) dangerous. (Evil has another meaning).
The lesser evil in proprietary is that it weakens the community
development culture -- which fuels the Free Software movement as
well as the OSS. I can perfectly understand why Free Software
opposes something that will eat away at their developer foundations.
In an ideal world all software will be Free. I think this is utopian,
but setting the aims at the sky is a good thing.
> Sharing software freely makes software that is of high quality, very
> flexible and available to everyone.
>
> Consequence:
> - It brings technology to people that normally wouldn't have it.
> - It evens out the playing field. (e.g. poor countries can compete).
All the above come under Free Software -- the aims are providing
freedom to use and freedom to modify & redistribute which result
in your aims.
> - It encourages the creation of technologies that help people.
That is the community part . The community decides rather than the
corporate about what to do. It is the evolution of a technology.
The number of GPL'd apps available are a testimony to this fact.
> > But would you go as far as to say that the GNU project did not have a
> > "Software model" ?
>
> I don't understand this question.
What I meant was that the GNU project has a software model aimed at
providing a free alternative (yeah, we were the first "We Have a Way Out"
guys -- MS copied that). And IMHO it has been successful and has survived
for 20 odd years and made a reputation for itself.
> I lack the ability to express them effectively in less than 10 pages.
LOL !.
> I am glad that you view my opinions as compatible with Free Software.
The border is represented by one single point --ie Why you're doing this.
If you're doing it for the good of others ie ethical reasons , you must
be a free software person. If you're doing this for improving the program
ie practical reasons , you're an OSS guy.
This is the difference I see.
Gopal.V
--
The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success
//===<=>===\\
|| GNU RULEZ ||
\\===<=>===//