Re: Shut Up With The Open Source Politics, OK?

I choose to use the term Free Software since the Open Source movement
seems (at least to me) focus on the added benifit or side effects of
what is typically expeirienced through the use of Free Software.

The goal of Free Software is not to reduce TCO. However, this usually
happens.

The goal of Free Software is not to develop better software (i.e secure
and/or flexible) than closed solutions. However, this usually ends up
happening as a side effect relating to the development model.

Remember, the term "Open Source" was created in order to develop a
business model. While I have nothing against companies injecting money
into the F/OSS pool, I have to remember that the Richard's motives did
not include building a business model from Free Software. 

The goal of Free Software is that it is Free; period. It is the freedom
that needs to be appreciated by the user base. Otherwise, with out the
appreciation, the user base will not defend it when closed vendors offer
their closed wares at no cost (i.e. bait and switch).

IMHO, The term "Open Source" is a dangerous one because it teaches its
followers all the wrong values. 


Best,
Adam Kosmin

WindowsRefund.net



[email protected] ([email protected]) wrote:
" On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, billg wrote:
"                     ^^^^^
" 
" First of all, I'm not sure there are /any/ politics in Open Source. Open
" Source, as a movement, is pretty much politics-free (or at most,
" laissez-faire libertarianism); that movement is all about trying to engineer
" software in the most efficient way possible. And that's a noble virtue in
" its own right.
" 
" 
" However, you might be confusing the Open Source software movement, with the
" Free software movement. The latter was founded as a political and tangible
" reaction to existing political and business pressures, and as such, will
" never exist without politics. To desire otherwise, would be to desire
" gourmet cooking without any actual food.
" 

-- 
# chown -R linux.GNU world